• 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

神经外科干预严重创伤性脑损伤的变化:创伤中心验证中衡量质量的挑战。

Variation in neurosurgical intervention for severe traumatic brain injury: The challenge of measuring quality in trauma center verification.

机构信息

From the Department of Surgery (E.I.T., S.P.S., B.S.D., E.S.T., J.J.C., V.P.H.) MetroHealth Medical Center; Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences (V.P.H.), Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Department of Neurological Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio (M.L.K.).

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Jul 1;91(1):114-120. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003114.

DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000003114
PMID:33605705
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8505004/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intracranial pressure monitor (ICPm) procedure rates are a quality metric for American College of Surgeons trauma center verification. However, ICPm procedure rates may not accurately reflect the quality of care in TBI. We hypothesized that ICPm and craniotomy/craniectomy procedure rates for severe TBI vary across the United States by geography and institution.

METHODS

We identified all patients with a severe traumatic brain injury (head Abbreviated Injury Scale, ≥3) from the 2016 Trauma Quality Improvement Program data set. Patients who received surgical decompression or ICPm were identified via International Classification of Diseases codes. Hospital factors included neurosurgeon group size, geographic region, teaching status, and trauma center level. Two multiple logistic regression models were performed identifying factors associated with (1) craniotomy with or without ICPm or (2) ICPm alone. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range) and odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

We identified 75,690 patients (66.4% male; age, 59 [36-77] years) with a median Injury Severity Score of 17 (11-25). Overall, 6.1% had surgical decompression, and 4.8% had ICPm placement. Logistic regression analysis showed that region of the country was significantly associated with procedure type: hospitals in the West were more likely to use ICPm (OR, 1.34 [1.20-1.50]), while Northeastern (OR, 0.80 [0.72-0.89]), Southern (OR, 0.84 [0.78-0.92]), and Western (OR, 0.88 [0.80-0.96]) hospitals were less likely to perform surgical decompression. Hospitals with small neurosurgeon groups (<3) were more likely to perform surgical intervention. Community hospitals are associated with higher odds of surgical decompression but lower odds of ICPm placement.

CONCLUSION

Both geographic differences and hospital characteristics are independent predictors for surgical intervention in severe traumatic brain injury. This suggests that nonpatient factors drive procedural decisions, indicating that ICPm rate is not an ideal quality metric for American College of Surgeons trauma center verification.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological, level III; Care management/Therapeutic level III.

摘要

背景

颅内压监测 (ICPm) 程序率是美国外科医师学院创伤中心验证的一项质量指标。然而,ICPm 程序率可能无法准确反映 TBI 的护理质量。我们假设,严重 TBI 的 ICPm 和开颅术/去骨瓣减压术的程序率因地理位置和机构而异。

方法

我们从 2016 年创伤质量改进计划数据集中确定了所有严重创伤性脑损伤(头部损伤严重程度评分,≥3)的患者。通过国际疾病分类代码识别接受手术减压或 ICPm 的患者。医院因素包括神经外科医生小组的规模、地理位置、教学状态和创伤中心级别。进行了两项多因素逻辑回归模型,以确定与 (1) 开颅术加或不加 ICPm 或 (2) 单独 ICPm 相关的因素。数据以中位数(四分位距)和比值比 (OR)(95%置信区间)表示。

结果

我们确定了 75690 名患者(66.4%为男性;年龄,59 [36-77] 岁),损伤严重程度评分中位数为 17(11-25)。总体而言,6.1%的患者接受了手术减压,4.8%的患者接受了 ICPm 放置。逻辑回归分析表明,国家的地理位置与手术类型显著相关:西部地区的医院更有可能使用 ICPm(OR,1.34 [1.20-1.50]),而东北地区(OR,0.80 [0.72-0.89])、南部(OR,0.84 [0.78-0.92])和西部(OR,0.88 [0.80-0.96])医院则不太可能进行手术减压。神经外科医生人数较少(<3 人)的医院更有可能进行手术干预。社区医院与更高的手术减压几率相关,但 ICPm 放置的几率较低。

结论

地理位置差异和医院特征都是严重创伤性脑损伤手术干预的独立预测因素。这表明非患者因素驱动手术决策,表明 ICPm 率不是美国外科医师学院创伤中心验证的理想质量指标。

证据水平

流行病学,III 级;护理管理/治疗,III 级。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7e71/8505004/66c47392ed88/nihms-1671553-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7e71/8505004/66c47392ed88/nihms-1671553-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7e71/8505004/66c47392ed88/nihms-1671553-f0001.jpg

相似文献

1
Variation in neurosurgical intervention for severe traumatic brain injury: The challenge of measuring quality in trauma center verification.神经外科干预严重创伤性脑损伤的变化:创伤中心验证中衡量质量的挑战。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Jul 1;91(1):114-120. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003114.
2
National variability in intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy for children with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.颅内压监测和开颅术在儿童中重度创伤性脑损伤中的应用存在国家差异。
Neurosurgery. 2013 Nov;73(5):746-52; discussion 752; quiz 752. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000097.
3
A Propensity Score Analysis of the Impact of Invasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring on Outcomes after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.有创颅内压监测对重度创伤性脑损伤后结局影响的倾向评分分析
J Neurotrauma. 2016 May 1;33(9):853-8. doi: 10.1089/neu.2015.4015. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
4
Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injuries: a closer look at level 1 trauma centers in the United States.严重创伤性脑损伤的颅内压监测:深入研究美国的一级创伤中心
Injury. 2017 Sep;48(9):1944-1950. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.033. Epub 2017 Apr 20.
5
Value of Ventricular Intracranial Pressure Monitoring for Traumatic Bifrontal Contusions.脑室颅内压监测在创伤性双额叶挫伤中的价值
World Neurosurg. 2018 May;113:e690-e701. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.122. Epub 2018 Mar 1.
6
Comparison of Outcomes in Level I vs Level II Trauma Centers in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy or Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.颅脑创伤患者行开颅术或去骨瓣减压术于 I 级与 II 级创伤中心治疗结局的比较。
Neurosurgery. 2020 Jan 1;86(1):107-111. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy634.
7
Is There an Age Cutoff for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring?: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank.颅内压监测是否有年龄限制?:国家创伤数据库的倾向评分匹配分析。
Am Surg. 2022 Jun;88(6):1163-1171. doi: 10.1177/0003134821991985. Epub 2021 Jan 31.
8
Variations in Discharge Destination Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury across the United States.美国重度创伤性脑损伤患者出院去向的变化。
J Surg Res. 2022 Mar;271:98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.10.023. Epub 2021 Dec 4.
9
Association Between Intoxication and Urgent Neurosurgical Procedures in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Results From the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program.严重创伤性脑损伤患者中毒与紧急神经外科手术的相关性:来自美国外科医师学会创伤质量改进计划的结果。
J Intensive Care Med. 2022 Mar;37(3):373-384. doi: 10.1177/08850666211017497. Epub 2021 May 20.
10
Compliance With Evidence-Based Guidelines and Interhospital Variation in Mortality for Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.严重创伤性脑损伤患者的循证指南依从性与医院间死亡率的差异。
JAMA Surg. 2015 Oct;150(10):965-72. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1678.

引用本文的文献

1
Clinical profile of patients with acute traumatic brain injury undergoing cranial surgery in the United States: report from the 18-centre TRACK-TBI cohort study.美国接受颅脑手术的急性创伤性脑损伤患者的临床概况:来自18个中心的TRACK-TBI队列研究报告。
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2024 Oct 17;39:100915. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100915. eCollection 2024 Nov.
2
Characterizing Interhospital Variability in Neurosurgical Interventions for Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Intracranial Hemorrhage.轻度创伤性脑损伤和颅内出血患者神经外科干预的医院间差异特征分析
Neurotrauma Rep. 2023 Mar 17;4(1):149-158. doi: 10.1089/neur.2022.0078. eCollection 2023.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Are all trauma centers created equal? Level 1 to level 1 trauma center patient transfers in the setting of rapid trauma center proliferation.所有创伤中心都一样吗?在快速创伤中心扩张的背景下,1 级创伤中心与 1 级创伤中心之间的患者转院。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Nov;89(5):920-925. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002738.
2
Regional and Institutional Practice Variations in Decompressive Spine Surgery for Patients with Penetrating Spinal Injury in the United States.美国穿透性脊柱损伤患者减压脊柱手术的区域和机构实践差异。
World Neurosurg. 2020 May;137:e263-e268. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.151. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
3
The Association of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Mortality: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort of Isolated Severe Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury.
Utility of intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injuries: a propensity score matching analysis of TQIP data.
颅内压监测在创伤性脑损伤患者中的效用:基于TQIP数据的倾向评分匹配分析
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Feb;50(1):173-184. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02239-3. Epub 2023 Feb 16.
4
Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges.严重创伤性脑损伤的初始神经重症护理:新范式与旧挑战。
Surg Neurol Int. 2022 Sep 23;13:431. doi: 10.25259/SNI_609_2022. eCollection 2022.
5
Variations in Discharge Destination Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury across the United States.美国重度创伤性脑损伤患者出院去向的变化。
J Surg Res. 2022 Mar;271:98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.10.023. Epub 2021 Dec 4.
6
Utilization of Brain Tissue Oxygenation Monitoring and Association with Mortality Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.脑组织氧监测的利用及其与严重创伤性脑损伤后死亡率的关系。
Neurocrit Care. 2022 Apr;36(2):350-356. doi: 10.1007/s12028-021-01394-y. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
颅内压监测与死亡率的关联:孤立性重度钝性创伤性脑损伤的倾向评分匹配队列研究
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2019 Jan-Mar;12(1):18-22. doi: 10.4103/JETS.JETS_59_18.
4
Correction to: Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.对《创伤性脑损伤神经外科治疗的差异:参与CENTER-TBI研究的68个中心的调查》一文的更正
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Mar;161(3):451-455. doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-03815-6.
5
Geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture: an update on surgery rates and treatment consensus.肱骨近端骨折治疗的地域差异:手术率及治疗共识的最新情况
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jan 21;14(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1052-2.
6
Variation in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures in the United States: 2010 to 2015.美国桡骨远端骨折治疗的差异:2010 年至 2015 年。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1):159-167. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005088.
7
Do contradictions in TQIP measures affect perceptions of quality. An analysis of TQIP definitions on quality outcomes for placement of ICP monitoring at a single level one trauma center.TQIP 测量中的矛盾是否会影响对质量的感知。对单一一级创伤中心颅内压监测放置的质量结果的 TQIP 定义进行的分析。
Am J Surg. 2019 Mar;217(3):509-511. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.10.033. Epub 2018 Oct 28.
8
Intracranial Hypertension and Cerebral Autoregulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.颅内高压与脑自动调节:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
World Neurosurg. 2018 May;113:110-124. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.194. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
9
The current role of decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury.减压性颅骨切除术在严重创伤性脑损伤中的当前作用。
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Sep;43:11-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.04.032. Epub 2017 May 13.
10
Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injuries: a closer look at level 1 trauma centers in the United States.严重创伤性脑损伤的颅内压监测:深入研究美国的一级创伤中心
Injury. 2017 Sep;48(9):1944-1950. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.033. Epub 2017 Apr 20.