Suppr超能文献

我们是否仍应将机动车碰撞伤作为使用创伤中心资源的唯一分诊标准?

Should we still use motor vehicle intrusion as a sole triage criterion for the use of trauma center resources?

作者信息

Matsushima Kazuhide, Chouliaras Konstantinos, Koenig William, Preston Christy, Gorospe Deidre, Demetriades Demetrios

机构信息

Division of Acute Care Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Division of Acute Care Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

出版信息

Injury. 2016 Jan;47(1):235-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.033. Epub 2015 Oct 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Motor vehicle intrusion (MVI) is one of the field triage criteria recommended by the American College of Surgeons Committee of Trauma (ACS-COT) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, the evidence supporting its validity is scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of this criterion and assess its impact on overtriage or undertriage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study based on the Los Angeles County Trauma and Emergency Medicine Information System (TEMIS) Trauma database. Included in the analysis were patients with MVI as the sole criterion for trauma center triage. Physiological characteristics, severity of injury, and outcomes of the MVI patients were compared between different age groups. Further, a logistic regression model was used to identify factors significantly associated with the need for trauma center resources.

RESULTS

During the period 2002-2012, a total of 10,554 trauma patients involved in motor vehicle crashes had documentation of MVI. A subgroup of 3998 patients (37.9%) did not meet any other criteria that require immediate transportation to a designated trauma center. Only 0.7% of these patients had hypotension and 0.1% had deterioration of the Glasgow Coma Scale on admission to the emergency room. Overall, 18.8% of patients required trauma center resources defined as intubation in the emergency room, certain surgical procedures, in-hospital death, or intensive care unit admission. Age ≥65 years, male gender, prehospital heart rate >100/min, and systolic blood pressure <110 mmHg were significantly associated with the need for trauma center resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The MVI itself did not appear to be a strong indicator for the use of trauma center resources and is associated with excessive overtriage. However, age >65 years, systolic blood pressure <110 mmHg, and heart rate >100/min were significant predictors for the need of trauma center resources. The MVI criterion should be refined for better utilization of trauma center resources.

摘要

背景

机动车碰撞伤(MVI)是美国外科医师学会创伤委员会(ACS-COT)和疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)推荐的现场分诊标准之一。然而,支持其有效性的证据很少。本研究的目的是评估该标准的有效性,并评估其对过度分诊或分诊不足的影响。

患者与方法

这是一项基于洛杉矶县创伤与急诊医学信息系统(TEMIS)创伤数据库的回顾性研究。纳入分析的是以MVI作为创伤中心分诊唯一标准的患者。比较了不同年龄组MVI患者的生理特征、损伤严重程度和结局。此外,使用逻辑回归模型确定与需要创伤中心资源显著相关的因素。

结果

在2002年至2012年期间,共有10554名涉及机动车碰撞的创伤患者有MVI的记录。3998名患者(37.9%)的亚组不符合任何其他需要立即转运至指定创伤中心的标准。这些患者中只有0.7%有低血压,0.1%在急诊室入院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分下降。总体而言,18.8%的患者需要创伤中心资源,定义为在急诊室插管、某些外科手术、院内死亡或入住重症监护病房。年龄≥65岁、男性、院前心率>100次/分钟和收缩压<110 mmHg与需要创伤中心资源显著相关。

结论

MVI本身似乎不是使用创伤中心资源的有力指标,且与过度分诊有关。然而,年龄>65岁、收缩压<110 mmHg和心率>100次/分钟是需要创伤中心资源的重要预测因素。应完善MVI标准以更好地利用创伤中心资源。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验