Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Heinrich Heine University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Department of Trauma Surgery and Orthopaedics, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery and Burn Medicine, German Armed Forces Central Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Apr;48(2):1101-1109. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01668-2. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
To improve the quality of criteria for trauma-team-activation it is necessary to identify patients who benefited from the treatment by a trauma team. Therefore, we evaluated a post hoc criteria catalogue for trauma-team-activation which was developed in a consensus process by an expert group and published recently. The objective was to examine whether the catalogue can identify patients that died after admission to the hospital and therefore can benefit from a specialized trauma team mostly.
The catalogue was applied to the data of 75,613 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU between the 01/2007 and 12/2016 with a maximum abbreviated injury score (AIS) severity ≥ 2. The endpoint was hospital mortality, which was defined as death before discharge from acute care.
The TraumaRegister DGU dataset contains 18 of the 20 proposed criteria within the catalogue which identified 99.6% of the patients who were admitted to the trauma room following an accident and who died during their hospital stay. Moreover, our analysis showed that at least one criterion was fulfilled in 59,785 cases (79.1%). The average ISS in this group was 21.2 points (SD 9.9). None of the examined criteria applied to 15,828 cases (average ISS 8.6; SD 5). The number of consensus-based criteria correlated with the severity of injury and mortality. Of all deceased patients (8,451), only 31 (0.37%) could not be identified on the basis of the 18 examined criteria. Where only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was 1.7%; with 2 or more criteria, mortality was at least 4.6%.
The consensus-based criteria identified nearly all patients who died as a result of their injuries. If only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was relatively low. However, it increased to almost 5% if two criteria were fulfilled. Further studies are necessary to analyse and examine the relative weighting of the various criteria. Our instrument is capable to identify severely injured patients with increased in-hospital mortality and injury severity. However, a minimum of two criteria needs to be fulfilled. Based on these findings, we conclude that the criteria list is useful for post hoc analysis of the quality of field triage in patients with severe injury.
为了提高创伤团队激活标准的质量,有必要确定从创伤团队治疗中获益的患者。因此,我们评估了最近由专家组通过共识制定并发表的创伤团队激活后列标准目录。目的是检查该目录是否可以识别住院后死亡的患者,从而主要受益于专门的创伤团队。
该目录适用于 2007 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月间创伤登记处 DGU 中 75613 名最大简明损伤评分(AIS)严重度≥2 的患者的数据。终点是医院死亡率,定义为急性护理出院前死亡。
创伤登记处 DGU 数据集包含目录中提出的 20 个标准中的 18 个,确定了 18%因事故而入住创伤室并在住院期间死亡的患者。此外,我们的分析表明,至少有一个标准在 59785 例病例中得到满足(79.1%)。该组的平均 ISS 为 21.2 分(标准差 9.9)。在 15828 例病例中没有应用任何检查标准(平均 ISS 为 8.6;标准差 5)。共识标准的数量与损伤严重程度和死亡率相关。在所有死亡患者(8451 例)中,只有 31 例(0.37%)无法根据 18 项检查标准确定。如果仅满足一个标准,则死亡率为 1.7%;如果满足 2 个或更多标准,则死亡率至少为 4.6%。
基于共识的标准几乎可以识别所有因受伤而死亡的患者。如果仅满足一个标准,则死亡率相对较低。但是,如果满足两个标准,则死亡率增加到近 5%。需要进一步研究来分析和检查各种标准的相对权重。我们的工具能够识别因严重受伤而住院死亡率和损伤严重程度增加的患者。但是,需要满足至少两个标准。基于这些发现,我们得出结论,该标准列表可用于对严重受伤患者的现场分诊质量进行事后分析。