Sheehan Brian Matthew, Grigorian Areg, Maithel Shelley, Borazjani Boris, Fujitani Roy M, Kabutey Nii-Kabu, Lekawa Michael, Nahmias Jeffry
Department of Surgery, 8788University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, CA, USA.
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020 Nov;54(8):692-696. doi: 10.1177/1538574420947234. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
Penetrating abdominal aortic injury (PAAI) is a highly acute injury requiring prompt surgical management. When compared to surgeons at level-II trauma centers, surgeons at level-I trauma centers are more likely to take in-house call, and may more often be available within 15 minutes of patient arrival. Thus, we hypothesized that level-I trauma centers would have a lower mortality rate than level-II trauma centers in patients with PAAI.
We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database for patients with PAAI, and compared patients treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified level-I centers to those treated at ACS level-II centers.
PAAI was identified in 292 patients treated at level-I centers and 86 patients treated at level-II centers. Patients treated at the 2 center types had similar median age, injury severity scores and prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the frequency of additional intra-abdominal vascular injuries (p > 0.05). Median time to hemorrhage control (level-I: 40.8 vs level-II: 49.2 minutes, p = 0.21) was similar between hospitals at the 2 trauma center levels. We found no difference in the total hospital length of stay or post-operative complications (p > 0.05). When controlling for covariates, we found no difference in the risk of mortality between ACS verified level-I and level-II trauma centers (OR:1.01, CI:0.28-2.64, p = 0.99).
Though the majority of PAAIs are treated at level-I trauma centers, we found no difference in the time to hemorrhage control, or the risk of mortality in those treated at level-I centers when compared to those treated at level-II trauma centers. This finding reinforces the ACS-verification process, which strives to achieve similar outcomes between level-I and level-II centers.
穿透性腹主动脉损伤(PAAI)是一种高度急性损伤,需要迅速进行手术治疗。与二级创伤中心的外科医生相比,一级创伤中心的外科医生更有可能承担内部值班任务,并且在患者到达后15分钟内更常能到位。因此,我们假设在PAAI患者中,一级创伤中心的死亡率低于二级创伤中心。
我们查询了创伤质量改进计划数据库中的PAAI患者,并将在美国外科医师学会(ACS)认证的一级中心接受治疗的患者与在ACS二级中心接受治疗的患者进行了比较。
在一级中心治疗的292例患者和二级中心治疗的86例患者中发现了PAAI。两种中心类型治疗的患者在年龄中位数、损伤严重程度评分以及糖尿病、高血压和吸烟的患病率方面相似(p>0.05)。腹部其他血管损伤的频率没有差异(p>0.05)。两个创伤中心级别的医院之间,出血控制的中位时间相似(一级:40.8分钟 vs 二级:49.2分钟,p = 0.21)。我们发现总住院时间或术后并发症方面没有差异(p>0.05)。在控制协变量后,我们发现ACS认证的一级和二级创伤中心之间的死亡率风险没有差异(OR:1.01,CI:0.28 - 2.64,p = 0.99)。
尽管大多数PAAI患者在一级创伤中心接受治疗,但与二级创伤中心治疗的患者相比,我们发现一级中心治疗的患者在出血控制时间或死亡率风险方面没有差异。这一发现强化了ACS认证过程,该过程致力于在一级和二级中心之间实现相似的治疗结果。