• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

穿透性腹主动脉损伤:美国外科医师学会认证的一级和二级创伤中心的比较

Penetrating Abdominal Aortic Injury: Comparison of ACS-Verified Level-I and II Trauma Centers.

作者信息

Sheehan Brian Matthew, Grigorian Areg, Maithel Shelley, Borazjani Boris, Fujitani Roy M, Kabutey Nii-Kabu, Lekawa Michael, Nahmias Jeffry

机构信息

Department of Surgery, 8788University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, CA, USA.

出版信息

Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020 Nov;54(8):692-696. doi: 10.1177/1538574420947234. Epub 2020 Aug 13.

DOI:10.1177/1538574420947234
PMID:32787694
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

相似文献

1
Penetrating Abdominal Aortic Injury: Comparison of ACS-Verified Level-I and II Trauma Centers.穿透性腹主动脉损伤:美国外科医师学会认证的一级和二级创伤中心的比较
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020 Nov;54(8):692-696. doi: 10.1177/1538574420947234. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
2
Mesenteric Vascular Injury in Trauma: An NTDB Study.创伤性肠系膜血管损伤:NTDB 研究。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Jan;70:542-548. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.08.101. Epub 2020 Sep 6.
3
Survival trends after inferior vena cava and aortic injuries in the United States.美国下腔静脉和主动脉损伤后的生存趋势。
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Dec;68(6):1880-1888. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.04.033. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
4
Open and Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Injury Repair Outcomes in Polytrauma Patients.多发伤患者开放性和血管腔内腹主动脉损伤修复的结果
Ann Vasc Surg. 2017 Jul;42:156-161. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2016.11.023. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
5
High Mortality and Venous Thromboembolism Risk Following Major Penetrating Abdominal Venous Injuries.主要穿透性腹部静脉损伤后死亡率和静脉血栓栓塞风险高。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Oct;76:193-201. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.06.002. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
6
Management and Outcomes of Isolated Axillary Artery Injury: A Five-Year National Trauma Data Bank Analysis.孤立性腋动脉损伤的管理与预后:一项为期五年的国家创伤数据库分析。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2020 May;65:113-123. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.10.085. Epub 2019 Oct 31.
7
Regionalization of trauma care by operative experience: Does the volume of emergent laparotomy matter?创伤救治的区域性分工:急诊剖腹手术量是否重要?
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Jan 1;90(1):11-20. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002911.
8
Epidemiology and outcome of vascular trauma at a British Major Trauma Centre.英国大型创伤中心血管创伤的流行病学和转归。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012 Aug;44(2):203-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.05.013. Epub 2012 Jun 2.
9
Long-term outcomes after pediatric peripheral revascularization secondary to trauma at an urban level I center.城市一级创伤中心儿童外周血运重建后长期结局。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Mar;69(3):857-862. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.029. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
10
Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Management of Traumatic Penetrating Internal Jugular Vein Injury.外伤性穿透性颈内静脉损伤的非手术与手术治疗比较。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Apr;72:440-444. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.08.149. Epub 2020 Sep 16.