Holena Daniel N, Wiebe Douglas J, Carr Brendan G, Hsu Jesse Y, Sperry Jason L, Peitzman Andrew B, Reilly Patrick M
Division of Traumatology, Surgical Critical Care and Emergency Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; The Penn Injury Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; The Penn Injury Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Mar;224(3):255-263. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.11.016. Epub 2016 Dec 18.
Admission physiology predicts mortality after injury, but may be improved by resuscitation before transfer. This phenomenon, which has been termed lead-time bias, may lead to underprediction of mortality in transferred patients and inaccurate benchmarking in centers receiving large numbers of transfer patients. We sought to determine the impact of using vital signs on arrival at the referring center vs on arrival at the trauma center in mortality prediction models for transferred trauma patients.
We performed a retrospective cohort study using a state-wide trauma registry including all patients age 16 years or older, with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores ≥ 3, admitted to level I and II trauma centers in Pennsylvania, from 2011 to 2014. The primary outcomes measure was the risk-adjusted association between mortality and interhospital transfer (IHT) when adjusting for physiology (as measured by Revised Trauma Score [RTS]) using the referring hospital arrival vital signs (model 1) compared with trauma center arrival vital signs (model 2).
After adjusting for patient and injury factors, IHT was associated with reduced mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.93) using the RTS from trauma center admission, but with increased mortality (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.27) using RTS from the referring hospital. The greater the number of transfer patients seen by a center, the greater the difference in center-level mortality predicted by the 2 models (β -0.044; 95% CI -0.044 to -0.0043; p ≤ 0.001).
Trauma center vital signs underestimate mortality in transfer patients and may lead to incorrect estimates of expected mortality. Where possible, benchmarking efforts should use referring hospital vital signs to risk-adjust IHT patients.
入院时的生理指标可预测创伤后的死亡率,但在转运前进行复苏可能会改善这一情况。这种被称为提前期偏倚的现象,可能导致对转运患者死亡率的预测偏低,以及在接收大量转运患者的中心进行不准确的基准比较。我们试图确定在转运创伤患者的死亡率预测模型中,使用转诊中心到达时的生命体征与创伤中心到达时的生命体征对死亡率预测的影响。
我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,使用了一个全州范围的创伤登记系统,纳入了2011年至2014年期间所有年龄在16岁及以上、简明损伤定级(AIS)评分≥3、入住宾夕法尼亚州一级和二级创伤中心的患者。主要结局指标是在使用转诊医院到达时的生命体征(模型1)与创伤中心到达时的生命体征(模型2)对生理指标(用修正创伤评分[RTS]衡量)进行调整后,死亡率与院间转运(IHT)之间的风险调整关联。
在对患者和损伤因素进行调整后,使用创伤中心入院时的RTS,IHT与死亡率降低相关(比值比[OR]0.85;95%置信区间0.77至0.93),但使用转诊医院的RTS时,IHT与死亡率增加相关(OR 1.15;95%置信区间1.05至1.27)。一个中心接收的转运患者数量越多,两种模型预测的中心层面死亡率差异就越大(β -0.044;95%置信区间-0.044至-0.0043;p≤0.001)。
创伤中心的生命体征低估了转运患者的死亡率,可能导致对预期死亡率的错误估计。在可能的情况下,基准比较应使用转诊医院的生命体征对IHT患者进行风险调整。