Kaufman Elinore J, Wiebe Douglas J, Martin Niels D, Pascual Jose L, Reilly Patrick M, Holena Daniel N
Master of Science in Health Policy Program, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Surg Res. 2016 Jun 15;203(2):338-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2016.03.049. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
Although trauma patients are frequently cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU), admission triage criteria are unclear and may vary among providers and institutions. The benefits of close monitoring must be weighed against the economic and opportunity costs of an ICU admission.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated for blunt splenic injuries from 2011-2014 at 30 level I and II Pennsylvania trauma centers. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship between ICU admission and mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics, injury characteristics, and physiology. We calculated center-level observed-to-expected ratios for ICU utilization and mortality and evaluated correlations with Spearman's rho. We compared the proportion of patients receiving critical care procedures, such as mechanical ventilation or central line placement between high and low-ICU-utilization centers.
Of 2587 patients with blunt splenic injuries, 63.9% (1654) were admitted to the ICU. Median injury severity score was 17 overall, 13 for non-ICU patients and 17 for ICU patients (P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, ICU admission was not significantly associated with mortality. Center-level risk-adjusted ICU admission rates ranged from 17.9%-87.3%. Risk-adjusted mortality rates ranged from 1.2%-9.6%. There was no correlation between observed-to-expected ratios for ICU utilization and mortality (Spearman's rho = -0.2595, P = 0.2103). Proportionately fewer ICU patients received critical care procedures at high-utilization centers than at low-utilization centers.
Risk-adjusted ICU utilization rates for splenic trauma varied widely among trauma centers, with no clear relationship to mortality. Standardizing ICU admission criteria could improve resource utilization without increasing mortality.
尽管创伤患者经常在重症监护病房(ICU)接受治疗,但入院分诊标准尚不明确,且不同医疗服务提供者和机构之间可能存在差异。密切监测的益处必须与ICU入院的经济成本和机会成本相权衡。
我们对2011年至2014年在宾夕法尼亚州30家一级和二级创伤中心接受钝性脾损伤治疗的患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来评估ICU入院与死亡率之间的关系,并对患者特征、损伤特征和生理状况进行了调整。我们计算了各中心ICU利用率和死亡率的观察值与预期值之比,并使用Spearman等级相关系数评估相关性。我们比较了高ICU利用率中心和低ICU利用率中心接受重症监护程序(如机械通气或中心静脉置管)的患者比例。
在2587例钝性脾损伤患者中,63.9%(1654例)入住ICU。总体损伤严重程度评分中位数为17分,非ICU患者为13分,ICU患者为17分(P < 0.001)。在多变量逻辑回归中,ICU入院与死亡率无显著相关性。各中心风险调整后的ICU入院率在17.9%至87.3%之间。风险调整后的死亡率在1.2%至9.6%之间。ICU利用率的观察值与预期值之比与死亡率之间无相关性(Spearman等级相关系数 = -0.2595,P = 0.2103)。高利用率中心接受重症监护程序的ICU患者比例比低利用率中心少。
各创伤中心脾外伤风险调整后的ICU利用率差异很大,与死亡率无明显关系。标准化ICU入院标准可以提高资源利用率而不增加死亡率。