Division of Trauma, Critical Care and General Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Mary Brigh 2-810, 1216 Second Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55902, USA.
Department of Surgery, University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KZN, South Africa.
World J Surg. 2020 Dec;44(12):3993-3998. doi: 10.1007/s00268-020-05718-5. Epub 2020 Jul 31.
Comprehensive analysis of trauma care between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high-volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting.
Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post-operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality.
There were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status.
Use and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation.
为了改善全球健康状况,需要对高、中、低收入国家(HIC/MIC/LIC)之间的创伤护理进行全面分析。目前尚不清楚 HIC 和 MIC 患者在接受损伤控制性剖腹手术后的结果比较。我们评估了美国和南非高容量创伤中心治疗的患者中 DCL 的应用情况,假设尽管资源和环境存在差异,但死亡率结果相似。
对参与中心前瞻性收集的创伤数据库进行了事后分析。提取损伤严重程度、生理、手术数据和术后结果。进行单变量和多变量分析,以评估 HIC/MIC 之间死亡率的主要结果差异。
共纳入 967 例 HIC 和 602 例 MIC 患者行剖腹术。DCL 发生于 144 例 MIC 患者(25%)和 241 例 HIC 患者(24%)。大多数患者(58%)遭受穿透性创伤,MIC 患者的发生率高于 HIC(71%比 32%,p = 0.001)。与 HIC 相比,两组患者的入院生理状况、凝血功能障碍或休克标志物均无差异,但 HIC 患者的低血压发生率更高。晶体液输注量在 MIC 患者中更大,而 MIC 患者的血液制品输注量少于 HIC 患者。总体死亡率为 30%,两组死亡率相似(HIC 为 29%,MIC 为 33%,p = 0.4)。回归分析表明,碱缺失和穿透性损伤是死亡率的独立预测因素,但与患者居住地无关。
尽管 MIC 中心的穿透性创伤增加且输血减少,但在 HIC 和 MIC 环境中的创伤中心,严重腹部创伤患者接受 DCL 的应用和生存率相似。虽然总体结果表明 MIC 中需要 DCL 的患者的护理没有差距,但这突出了在损伤控制性复苏方面可以做出的改进。