Marx William H, Simon Ronald, O'Neill Patricia, Shapiro Marc J, Cooper Arthur C, Farrell Louise Sztpulski, McCormack Jane E, Bessey Palmer Q, Hannan Edward
Department of Surgery and Critical Care, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York 13210, USA.
J Trauma. 2011 Aug;71(2):339-45; discussion 345-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182214055.
Several studies in the literature have examined the volume-outcome relationship for trauma, but the findings have been mixed, and the associated impact of the trauma center level has not been examined to date. The purposes of this study are to (1) determine whether there is a significant relationship between the annual volume of trauma inpatients treated in a trauma center (with "patients" defined in multiple ways) and short-term mortality of those patients, and (2) examine the impact on the volume-mortality relationship of being a Level I versus Level II trauma center.
Data from New York's Trauma Registry in 2003 to 2006 were used to examine the impact of total trauma patient volume and volume of patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 16 on in-hospital mortality rates after adjusting for numerous risk factors that have been demonstrated to be associated with mortality.
The adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality patients in centers with a mean annual volume of less than 2,000 patients was significantly higher (adjusted odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.71) than the odds for patients in higher volume centers. The adjusted odds of mortality for patients in centers with an American College of Surgeons-recommended annual volume of less than 240 patients with an ISS of at least 16 was 1.41 times as high (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.69) as the odds for patients in higher volume centers. However, for both volume cohorts analyzed, the variation in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rate was greater among centers within each volume subset than between these volume subsets.
When considering the trauma system as a whole, higher total annual trauma center volume (2,000 or higher) and higher volume of patients with ISS ≥16 (240 and higher) are significant predictors of lower in-hospital mortality. Although the American College of Surgeons-recommended 1,200 total volume is not a significant predictor, hospitals in New York with ISS ≥16 volumes in excess of 240 also have total volumes in excess of 2,000. However, when considering individual trauma centers, high volume centers do not consistently perform better than low volume centers. Thus, despite the association between volume and mortality, we believe that the most accurate way to assess trauma center performance is through the use of an accurate, complete, comprehensive database for computing center-specific risk-adjusted mortality rates, rather than volume per se.
文献中的多项研究探讨了创伤治疗中的容量 - 结局关系,但结果不一,且创伤中心级别相关影响至今尚未得到研究。本研究目的在于:(1)确定创伤中心每年收治的创伤住院患者数量(以多种方式定义“患者”)与这些患者的短期死亡率之间是否存在显著关系;(2)研究作为一级与二级创伤中心对容量 - 死亡率关系的影响。
使用2003年至2006年纽约创伤登记处的数据,在调整了众多已证明与死亡率相关的风险因素后,研究创伤患者总数以及损伤严重程度评分(ISS)至少为16分的患者数量对住院死亡率的影响。
平均年收治患者数量少于2000例的中心,其住院患者死亡调整后的比值显著更高(调整后的比值比 = 1.46,95%置信区间,1.25 - 1.71),高于收治患者数量更多的中心。美国外科医师学会建议的年收治ISS至少为16分的患者数量少于240例的中心,其患者死亡调整后的比值是收治患者数量更多的中心的1.41倍(95%置信区间,1.17 - 1.69)。然而,对于所分析的两个容量队列,每个容量子集中各中心之间风险调整后的住院死亡率差异,大于这些容量子集之间的差异。
从整体创伤系统来看,创伤中心年收治患者总数较高(2000例或更高)以及ISS≥16分的患者数量较多(240例及更高)是住院死亡率较低的显著预测因素。虽然美国外科医师学会建议的1200例的总数不是显著预测因素,但纽约ISS≥16分的患者数量超过240例的医院,其患者总数也超过2000例。然而,就单个创伤中心而言,高容量中心并不总是比低容量中心表现更好。因此,尽管容量与死亡率之间存在关联,但我们认为评估创伤中心绩效的最准确方法是使用准确、完整、全面的数据库来计算特定中心的风险调整死亡率,而非容量本身。