Webman Rachel B, Carter Elizabeth A, Mittal Sushil, Wang Jichaun, Sathya Chethan, Nathens Avery B, Nance Michael L, Madigan David, Burd Randall S
Division of Trauma and Burn Surgery, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Scibler Corporation, Santa Clara, California.
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Aug 1;170(8):780-6. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0805.
Although data obtained from regional trauma systems demonstrate improved outcomes for children treated at pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) compared with those treated at adult trauma centers (ATCs), differences in mortality have not been consistently observed for adolescents. Because trauma is the leading cause of death and acquired disability among adolescents, it is important to better define differences in outcomes among injured adolescents by using national data.
To use a national data set to compare mortality of injured adolescents treated at ATCs, PTCs, or mixed trauma centers (MTCs) that treat both pediatric and adult trauma patients and to determine the final discharge disposition of survivors at different center types.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from level I and II trauma centers participating in the 2010 National Trauma Data Bank (January 1 to December 31, 2010) were used to create multilevel models accounting for center-specific effects to evaluate the association of center characteristics (PTC, ATC, or MTC) on mortality among patients aged 15 to 19 years who were treated for a blunt or penetrating injury. The models controlled for sex; mechanism of injury (blunt vs penetrating); injuries sustained, based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (post-dot values <3 or ≥3 by body region); initial systolic blood pressure; and Glasgow Coma Scale scores. Missing data were managed using multiple imputation, accounting for multilevel data structure. Data analysis was conducted from January 15, 2013, to March 15, 2016.
Type of trauma center.
Mortality at each center type.
Among 29 613 injured adolescents (mean [SD] age, 17.3 [1.4] years; 72.7% male), most were treated at ATCs (20 402 [68.9%]), with the remainder at MTCs (7572 [25.6%]) or PTCs (1639 [5.5%]). Adolescents treated at PTCs were more likely to be injured by a blunt than penetrating injury mechanism (91.4%) compared with those treated at ATCs (80.4%) or MTCs (84.6%). Mortality was higher among adolescents treated at ATCs and MTCs than those treated at PTCs (3.2% and 3.5% vs 0.4%; P < .001). The adjusted odds of mortality were higher at ATCs (odds ratio, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.30-13.51) and MTCs (odds ratio, 6.68; 95% CI, 2.03-21.99) compared with PTCs but was not different between level I and II centers (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99).
Mortality among injured adolescents was lower among those treated at PTCs, compared with those treated at ATCs and MTCs. Defining resource and patient features that account for these observed differences is needed to optimize adolescent outcomes after injury.
尽管从区域创伤系统获得的数据表明,与在成人创伤中心(ATC)接受治疗的儿童相比,在儿科创伤中心(PTC)接受治疗的儿童预后有所改善,但对于青少年,并未始终观察到死亡率存在差异。由于创伤是青少年死亡和后天残疾的主要原因,因此利用全国性数据更好地界定受伤青少年在预后方面的差异非常重要。
使用全国性数据集比较在ATC、PTC或同时治疗儿科和成人创伤患者的混合创伤中心(MTC)接受治疗的受伤青少年的死亡率,并确定不同中心类型幸存者的最终出院处置情况。
设计、设置和参与者:来自参与2010年国家创伤数据库(2010年1月1日至12月31日)的一级和二级创伤中心的数据用于创建考虑中心特定效应的多层次模型,以评估中心特征(PTC、ATC或MTC)与因钝性或穿透性损伤接受治疗的15至19岁患者死亡率之间的关联。模型对性别、损伤机制(钝性与穿透性)、根据简明损伤定级(AIS)评分得出的损伤情况(身体各部位损伤后评分<3或≥3)、初始收缩压和格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分进行了控制。使用多重填补法处理缺失数据,并考虑了多层次数据结构。数据分析于2013年l月15日至2016年3月15日进行。
创伤中心类型。
各中心类型的死亡率。
在29613名受伤青少年中(平均[标准差]年龄为17.3[1.4]岁;72.7%为男性),大多数在ATC接受治疗(20402名[68.9%]),其余在MTC(7572名[25.6%])或PTC(1639名[5.5%])接受治疗。与在ATC(80.4%)或MTC(84.6%)接受治疗的青少年相比,在PTC接受治疗的青少年因钝性损伤机制受伤的可能性更大(91.4%)。在ATC和MTC接受治疗的青少年死亡率高于在PTC接受治疗的青少年(分别为3.2%和3.5%对0.4%;P<0.001)。与PTC相比,ATC(优势比为4.19;95%置信区间为1.30 - 13.51)和MTC(优势比为6.68;95%置信区间为2.03 - 21.99)的校正死亡优势更高,但一级和二级中心之间无差异(优势比为0.76;95%置信区间为0.59 - 0.99)。
与在ATC和MTC接受治疗的受伤青少年相比,在PTC接受治疗的青少年死亡率更低。需要明确造成这些观察到的差异的资源和患者特征,以优化青少年受伤后的预后。