Suppr超能文献

创伤中心指定级别对失血性休克后结局的影响:一项多中心队列研究。

Impact of trauma centre designation level on outcomes following hemorrhagic shock: a multicentre cohort study.

作者信息

Dufresne Philippe, Moore Lynne, Tardif Pier-Alexandre, Razek Tarek, Omar Madiba, Boutin Amélie, Clément Julien

机构信息

From the Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Trauma, Emergency, Critical Care Medicine, CHU de Québec, Université Laval Research Centre, Québec, Que., (Dufresne, Moore, Tardif, Omar, Boutin); the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que., (Dufresne, Moore, Tardif, Omar, Boutin); the Department of Sugery, McGill University, Montreal, Que., (Razek); and the Department of Surgery, Université Laval, Québec, Que. (Clément).

出版信息

Can J Surg. 2017 Feb;60(1):45-52. doi: 10.1503/cjs.009916.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhagic shock is responsible for 45% of injury fatalities in North America, and 50% of these occur within 2 h of injury. There is currently a lack of evidence regarding the trajectories of patients in hemorrhagic shock and the potential benefit of level I/II care for these patients. We aimed to compare mortality across trauma centre designation levels for patients in hemorrhagic shock. Secondary objectives were to compare surgical delays, complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study based on a Canadian inclusive trauma system (1999-2012), including adults with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mm Hg on arrival who required urgent surgical care (< 6 h). Logistic regression was used to examine the influence of trauma centre designation level on risk-adjusted surgical delays, mortality and complications. Linear regression was used to examine LOS.

RESULTS

Compared with level I centres, adjusted odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of mortality for level III and IV centres were 1.71 (1.03-2.85) and 2.25 (1.08-4.73), respectively. Surgical delays did not vary across designation levels, but mean LOS and complications were lower in level II-IV centres than level I centres.

CONCLUSION

Level I/II centres may offer a survival advantage over level III/IV centres for patients requiring emergency intervention for hemorrhagic shock. Further research with larger sample sizes is required to confirm these results and to identify optimal transport time thresholds for bypassing level III/IV centres in favour of level I/II centres.

摘要

背景

在北美,失血性休克导致45%的创伤死亡,其中50%发生在受伤后2小时内。目前,关于失血性休克患者的病程轨迹以及一级/二级护理对这些患者的潜在益处,缺乏相关证据。我们旨在比较失血性休克患者在不同创伤中心指定级别之间的死亡率。次要目标是比较手术延迟、并发症和住院时间(LOS)。

方法

我们基于加拿大的一个包容性创伤系统(1999 - 2012年)进行了一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了到达时收缩压(SBP)< 90 mmHg且需要紧急手术治疗(< 6小时)的成年人。使用逻辑回归来检验创伤中心指定级别对风险调整后的手术延迟、死亡率和并发症的影响。使用线性回归来检验住院时间。

结果

与一级中心相比,三级和四级中心的调整后死亡率比值比(及95%置信区间[CI])分别为1.71(1.03 - 2.85)和2.25(1.08 - 4.73)。手术延迟在不同指定级别之间没有差异,但二级至四级中心的平均住院时间和并发症低于一级中心。

结论

对于需要紧急干预治疗失血性休克的患者,一级/二级中心可能比三级/四级中心具有生存优势。需要进行更大样本量的进一步研究来证实这些结果,并确定绕过三级/四级中心而选择一级/二级中心的最佳转运时间阈值。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

4
Variability in Current Trauma Systems and Outcomes.当前创伤系统与结果的变异性。
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2020 Jul-Sep;13(3):201-207. doi: 10.4103/JETS.JETS_49_19. Epub 2020 Sep 18.

本文引用的文献

2
The relationship between trauma center volume and in-hospital outcomes.创伤中心规模与院内治疗结果之间的关系。
J Surg Res. 2015 Jun 15;196(2):350-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.02.009. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
8
Complications to evaluate adult trauma care: An expert consensus study.评估成人创伤护理的并发症:一项专家共识研究。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Aug;77(2):322-9; discussion 329-30. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000366.

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