Suppr超能文献

钝器创伤死亡率:创伤中心级别是否重要?

Blunt Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

机构信息

Division of Trauma, Burns and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange County, California.

Division of Trauma, Burns and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange County, California.

出版信息

J Surg Res. 2022 Aug;276:76-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.017. Epub 2022 Mar 24.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Trauma centers have improved outcomes compared to nontrauma centers when caring for injured patients. A multicenter report found blunt trauma patients treated at American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma centers have improved survival compared to Level II centers. In a subsequent multicenter study, Level II centers had improved survival in all trauma patients. We sought to provide a more granular analysis by stratifying blunt mechanisms-to determine if there was a difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients presenting to an American College of Surgeons' Level I or II trauma center after blunt trauma. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed controlling for comorbidities and Trauma and Injury Severity Score.

RESULTS

From 734,473 patients with blunt trauma, 507,715 (69.1%) were treated at a Level I center and 226,758 (30.9%) at a Level II center. The Level I cohort was younger (median age, 53 versus 58, P = 0.01), with a higher median injury severity score (13 versus 10, P < 0.001) and with more patients presenting after a motor vehicle accident (MVA) (27.9% versus 22.4%, P < 0.001) and lower rates of falls (46.6% versus 54.5%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers (P > 0.05). When stratifying by mechanisms, Level I centers had a decreased associated mortality for MVA (odds ratio = 0.94, CI: 0.88-0.99, P = 0.04) and bicycle accidents (odds ratio = 0.77, CI: 0.74-0.03, P = 0.01) but no difference in falls or pedestrians struck (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, blunt trauma patients presenting to a Level I center have no difference in mortality compared to a Level II center. However, when stratified by mechanism, those involved in MVA or bicycle accidents have a decreased associated risk of mortality. Future prospective studies examining variations in practice to account for these differences are warranted.

摘要

简介

与非创伤中心相比,创伤中心在救治创伤患者方面改善了预后。一项多中心报告发现,在美国外科医师学院一级创伤中心接受治疗的钝器伤患者的存活率高于二级中心。在随后的一项多中心研究中,二级中心所有创伤患者的存活率都有所提高。我们试图通过分层钝性机制进行更细致的分析,以确定一级和二级中心之间的死亡率是否存在差异。

方法

对美国外科医师学院一级或二级创伤中心收治的钝器伤患者的创伤质量改进计划(2010-2016 年)进行了查询。采用多变量逻辑回归分析,控制合并症和创伤和损伤严重程度评分。

结果

在 734473 例钝器伤患者中,507715 例(69.1%)在一级中心治疗,226758 例(30.9%)在二级中心治疗。一级中心队列的年龄更小(中位数年龄为 53 岁,58 岁,P=0.01),损伤严重程度评分中位数更高(13 分,10 分,P<0.001),更多患者因机动车事故(MVA)(27.9%,22.4%,P<0.001)就诊,跌倒发生率较低(46.6%,54.5%,P<0.001)。在调整了混杂因素后,一级和二级中心之间的死亡率没有差异(P>0.05)。按机制分层时,一级中心因 MVA(比值比=0.94,95%置信区间:0.88-0.99,P=0.04)和自行车事故(比值比=0.77,95%置信区间:0.74-0.03,P=0.01)的死亡率降低,但跌倒或行人被撞的死亡率没有差异(P>0.05)。

结论

总体而言,与二级中心相比,就诊于一级中心的钝器伤患者的死亡率没有差异。然而,按机制分层时,MVA 或自行车事故患者的死亡率降低。未来有必要进行前瞻性研究,以检查实践中的差异,并考虑这些差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验