Nishijima Daniel K, Gaona Samuel D, Waechter Trent, Maloney Ric, Bair Troy, Blitz Adam, Elms Andrew R, Farrales Roel D, Howard Calvin, Montoya James, Bell Jeneita M, Faul Mark, Vinson David R, Garzon Hernando, Holmes James F, Ballard Dustin W
Department of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Aug;70(2):127-138.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.018. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Field triage guidelines recommend that emergency medical services (EMS) providers consider transport of head-injured older adults with anticoagulation use to trauma centers. However, the triage patterns and the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage or neurosurgery in these patients are unknown. Our objective is to describe the characteristics and outcomes of older adults with head trauma who are transported by EMS, particularly for patients who do not meet physiologic, anatomic, or mechanism-of-injury (steps 1 to 3) field triage criteria but are receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 5 EMS agencies and 11 hospitals (4 trauma centers, 7 nontrauma centers). Patients aged 55 years or older with head trauma who were transported by EMS were included. The primary outcome was the presence of intracranial hemorrhage. The secondary outcome was a composite measure of inhospital death or neurosurgery. RESULTS: Of the 2,110 patients included, 131 (6%) had intracranial hemorrhage and 41 (2%) had inhospital death or neurosurgery. There were 162 patients (8%) with steps 1 to 3 criteria. Of the remaining 1,948 patients without steps 1 to 3 criteria, 566 (29%) had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. Of these patients, 52 (9%) had traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and 15 (3%) died or had neurosurgery. The sensitivity (adjusted for clustering by EMS agency) of steps 1 to 3 criteria was 19.8% (26/131; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5% to 51.2%) for identifying traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and 34.1% (14/41; 95% CI 9.9% to 70.1%) for death or neurosurgery. The additional criterion of anticoagulant or antiplatelet use improved the sensitivity for intracranial hemorrhage (78/131; 59.5%; 95% CI 42.9% to 74.2%) and death or neurosurgery (29/41; 70.7%; 95% CI 61.0% to 78.9%). CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients met steps 1 to 3 triage criteria. For individuals who did not have steps 1 to 3 criteria, nearly 30% had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. A relatively high proportion of these patients had intracranial hemorrhage, but a much smaller proportion died or had neurosurgery during hospitalization. Use of steps 1 to 3 triage criteria alone is not sufficient in identifying intracranial hemorrhage and death or neurosurgery in this patient population. The additional criterion of anticoagulant or antiplatelet use improves the sensitivity of the instrument, with only a modest decrease in specificity.
研究目的:现场分诊指南建议,紧急医疗服务(EMS)提供者应考虑将使用抗凝剂的头部受伤老年人转运至创伤中心。然而,这些患者的分诊模式以及颅内出血或神经外科手术的发生率尚不清楚。我们的目的是描述由EMS转运的头部创伤老年人的特征和结局,特别是对于那些不符合生理、解剖或损伤机制(第1至3步)现场分诊标准但正在接受抗凝或抗血小板药物治疗的患者。 方法:这是一项对5个EMS机构和11家医院(4个创伤中心,7个非创伤中心)进行的回顾性研究。纳入了由EMS转运的55岁及以上头部创伤患者。主要结局是颅内出血的存在。次要结局是住院死亡或神经外科手术的综合指标。 结果:在纳入的2110例患者中,131例(6%)发生颅内出血,41例(2%)发生住院死亡或接受神经外科手术。有162例患者(8%)符合第1至3步标准。在其余1948例不符合第1至3步标准的患者中,566例(29%)使用了抗凝剂或抗血小板药物。在这些患者中,52例(9%)发生创伤性颅内出血,15例(3%)死亡或接受神经外科手术。第1至3步标准识别创伤性颅内出血的敏感性(经EMS机构聚类调整)为19.8%(26/131;95%置信区间[CI]5.5%至51.2%),识别死亡或神经外科手术的敏感性为34.1%(14/41;95%CI 9.9%至70.1%)。抗凝剂或抗血小板药物使用这一附加标准提高了颅内出血(78/131;59.5%;95%CI 42.9%至74.2%)以及死亡或神经外科手术(29/41;70.7%;95%CI 61.0%至78.9%)的敏感性。 结论:相对较少的患者符合第1至3步分诊标准。对于不符合第1至3步标准的个体,近30%使用了抗凝剂或抗血小板药物。这些患者中有相对较高比例发生颅内出血,但住院期间死亡或接受神经外科手术的比例要小得多。仅使用第1至3步分诊标准不足以识别该患者群体中的颅内出血以及死亡或神经外科手术情况。抗凝剂或抗血小板药物使用这一附加标准提高了该工具的敏感性,特异性仅略有下降。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019-4-23
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025-6-27
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025-4-22
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022-8-1
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021-8-30
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016-10
N Engl J Med. 2015-6-22
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015-7