• 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

当前创伤系统与结果的变异性。

Variability in Current Trauma Systems and Outcomes.

作者信息

Elkbuli Adel, Dowd Brianna, Flores Rudy, Boneva Dessy, McKenney Mark

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Department of Trauma, HCA-South Atlantic Division, Charleston, SC, USA.

出版信息

J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2020 Jul-Sep;13(3):201-207. doi: 10.4103/JETS.JETS_49_19. Epub 2020 Sep 18.

DOI:10.4103/JETS.JETS_49_19
PMID:33304070
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7717469/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Complication rates may be indicative of trauma center (TC) performance. The complication rates between Level 1 and 2 TCs at the national level are unknown. Our study aimed to determine the relationship between American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified and state-designated TCs and complications.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a cohort review of the National Sample Program (NSP) from the National Trauma Data Bank, the world's largest validated trauma database. TCs were categorized by ACS or state Level 1 or 2. TCs not categorized as Level 1 or 2 were excluded. All 22 complications provided by the NSP were analyzed. Chi-squared analysis was used with statistical significance defined as < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 94 TCs in the NSP, 67 had ACS and 80 had state designations of Level 1 or 2. There were 38 ACS Level 1 TCs treating 87,340 patients and 29 ACS Level 2 TCs treating 35,763. There were 45 state Level 1 TCs treating 106,640 and 35 state Level 2 TCs treating 43,290. ACS Level 1 TCs had significantly higher complications compared to ACS Level 2 TCs (13.5% [11,776/87,340] vs. 10.1% [3,606/35,763], < 0.0001). In addition, state Level 1 TCs had significantly more complications compared to state Level 2 TCs (4.4% [4,681/106,640] vs. 1.6% [673/43,290], < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Both ACS and state Level 2 TCs had significantly lower complication rates than ACS and state Level 1 TCs. Further investigations should look for the source and impact of this difference.

摘要

背景

并发症发生率可能表明创伤中心(TC)的绩效。国家层面一级和二级创伤中心之间的并发症发生率尚不清楚。我们的研究旨在确定美国外科医师学会(ACS)认证的创伤中心和州指定的创伤中心与并发症之间的关系。

研究设计与方法

这是一项对来自世界上最大的经过验证的创伤数据库——国家创伤数据库的国家样本计划(NSP)的队列回顾。创伤中心按美国外科医师学会或州一级或二级进行分类。未归类为一级或二级的创伤中心被排除。对国家样本计划提供的所有22种并发症进行了分析。采用卡方分析,统计学显著性定义为P<0.05。

结果

在国家样本计划的94个创伤中心中,67个有美国外科医师学会认证,80个有州一级或二级指定。有38个美国外科医师学会一级创伤中心,治疗87340例患者;29个美国外科医师学会二级创伤中心,治疗35763例患者。有45个州一级创伤中心,治疗106640例患者;35个州二级创伤中心,治疗43290例患者。美国外科医师学会一级创伤中心的并发症发生率显著高于美国外科医师学会二级创伤中心(13.5%[11776/87340]对10.1%[3606/35763],P<0.0001)。此外,州一级创伤中心的并发症显著多于州二级创伤中心(4.4%[4681/106640]对1.6%[673/43290],P<0.0001)。

结论

美国外科医师学会认证的二级创伤中心和州二级创伤中心的并发症发生率均显著低于美国外科医师学会认证的一级创伤中心和州一级创伤中心。进一步的研究应探寻这种差异的根源。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/8359b403f9cc/JETS-13-201-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/215a7e53bb9a/JETS-13-201-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/02550e539cd2/JETS-13-201-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/8359b403f9cc/JETS-13-201-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/215a7e53bb9a/JETS-13-201-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/02550e539cd2/JETS-13-201-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d971/7717469/8359b403f9cc/JETS-13-201-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
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.
2
The impact of level of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification and state designation status on trauma center outcomes.美国外科医师学会创伤委员会认证级别及州指定状态对创伤中心治疗效果的影响。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jun;98(25):e16133. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016133.
3
The impact of teaching status on trauma center clinical outcomes in the United States.教学地位对美国创伤中心临床结局的影响。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Aug;98(34):e16951. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016951.
4
The Impact of Geographic Distribution on Trauma Center Outcomes: Do Center Outcomes Vary by Region?地理分布对创伤中心治疗效果的影响:中心治疗效果是否因地区而异?
J Surg Res. 2020 Aug;252:107-115. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.009. Epub 2020 Apr 9.
5
Certified acute care surgery programs improve outcomes in patients undergoing emergency surgery: A nationwide analysis.认证的急症外科手术项目可改善急诊手术患者的预后:一项全国性分析。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Jul;79(1):60-3; discussion 64. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000687.
6
A Comparison of Outcomes for Spinal Trauma Patients at Level I and Level II Centers.一级和二级中心脊柱创伤患者的预后比较。
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 May 1;34(4):153-157. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001074.
7
Differences in trauma mortality between ACS-verified and state-designated trauma centers in the US.美国经美国外科医师学会(ACS)认证的创伤中心与州指定创伤中心之间的创伤死亡率差异。
Injury. 2019 Jan;50(1):186-191. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.038. Epub 2018 Sep 21.
8
Impact of trauma center designation in pediatric renal trauma: National Trauma Data Bank analysis.创伤中心指定对小儿肾创伤的影响:国家创伤数据库分析
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Oct;16(5):658.e1-658.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.07.019. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
9
Geriatric Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?老年创伤死亡率:创伤中心级别重要吗?
Am Surg. 2021 Dec;87(12):1965-1971. doi: 10.1177/0003134820983190. Epub 2020 Dec 31.
10
American College of Surgeons trauma center verification versus state designation: are Level II centers slipping through the cracks?美国外科医师学会创伤中心验证与州指定:二级中心是否被忽视了?
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Jul;75(1):44-9; discussion 49. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182988729.

本文引用的文献

1
The National Trauma Data Bank Data Consistency: Can We Do Better?国家创伤数据库的数据一致性:我们能否做得更好?
Am Surg. 2018 Nov 1;84(11):e492-e493.
2
Where We Fail: Location and Timing of Failure to Rescue in Trauma.我们失败的地方:创伤救治中未能成功挽救的位置和时机
Am Surg. 2017 Mar 1;83(3):250-256.
3
Impact of trauma centre designation level on outcomes following hemorrhagic shock: a multicentre cohort study.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。
Can J Surg. 2017 Feb;60(1):45-52. doi: 10.1503/cjs.009916.
4
Characteristics of ACS-verified Level I and Level II trauma centers: A study linking trauma center verification review data and the National Trauma Data Bank of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma.经美国外科医师学会创伤委员会认证的一级和二级创伤中心的特征:一项将创伤中心认证审查数据与美国外科医师学会创伤委员会国家创伤数据库相联系的研究。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Oct;81(4):735-42. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001136.
5
[Mortality from postoperative complications (failure to rescue) after cardiac surgery in a university hospital].[大学医院心脏手术后术后并发症(未能成功救治)导致的死亡率]
Rev Calid Asist. 2016 May-Jun;31(3):126-33. doi: 10.1016/j.cali.2016.03.007. Epub 2016 May 17.
6
Failure to rescue patients from early critical complications of oesophagogastric cancer surgery.未能将患者从食管癌和胃癌手术的早期严重并发症中挽救出来。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016 Mar 2;7:34-41. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.02.027. eCollection 2016 May.
7
Positive and negative volume-outcome relationships in the geriatric trauma population.老年创伤人群中容量-结局的正性和负性关系。
JAMA Surg. 2014 Apr;149(4):319-26. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4834.
8
Impact of trauma center designation on outcomes: is there a difference between Level I and Level II trauma centers?创伤中心指定对结果的影响:一级和二级创伤中心之间有区别吗?
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Sep;215(3):372-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.03.018. Epub 2012 May 24.
9
Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome.急性呼吸窘迫综合征 5 年后的功能障碍。
N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 7;364(14):1293-304. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011802.
10
Outcomes after severe head injury: a National Trauma Data Bank-based comparison of Level I and Level II trauma centers.重度颅脑损伤后的结局:基于国家创伤数据库对一级和二级创伤中心的比较
Am Surg. 2011 Mar;77(3):277-80.