Hornor Melissa A, Blank Jacqueline J, Hatchimonji Justin S, Bailey Joanelle A, Jacovides Christina L, Reilly Patrick M, Cannon Jeremy W, Holena Daniel N, Seamon Mark J, Kaufman Elinore J
Division of Traumatology, Emergency Surgery, and Surgical Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Division of Traumatology, Emergency Surgery, and Surgical Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Injury. 2023 May;54(5):1400-1405. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.03.013. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
Injured patients presenting in shock are at high risk of mortality despite numerous efforts to improve resuscitation. Identifying differences in outcomes among centers for this population could yield insights to improve performance. We hypothesized that trauma centers treating higher volumes of patients in shock would have lower risk-adjusted mortality.
We queried the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study from 2016 to 2018 for injured patients ≥16 years of age at Level I&II trauma centers who had an initial systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <90 mmHg. We excluded patients with critical head injury (abbreviated injury score [AIS] head ≥5) and patients coming from centers with a shock patient volume of ≤10 for the study period. The primary exposure was tertile of center-level shock patient volume (low, medium, or high volume). We compared risk-adjusted mortality by tertile of volume using multivariable Cox proportional hazards model incorporating age, injury severity, mechanism, and physiology.
Of 1,805 included patients at 29 centers, 915 (50.7%) died. The median annual shock trauma patient volume was 9 patients for low volume centers, medium 19.5, and high 37. Median ISS was higher at high volume compared to low volume centers (22 vs 18, p <0.001). Raw mortality was 54.9% at high volume centers, 46.7% for medium, and 42.9% for low. Time elapsed from arrival to emergency department (ED) to the operating room (OR) was lower at high volume than low volume centers (median 47 vs 78 min) p = 0.003. In adjusted analysis, hazard ratio for high volume centers (referenced to low volume) was 0.76 (95% CI 0.59-0.97, p = 0.030).
After adjusting for patient physiology and injury characteristics, center-level volume is significantly associated with mortality. Future studies should seek to identify key practices associated with improved outcomes in high-volume centers. Furthermore, shock patient volume should be considered when new trauma centers are opened.
尽管为改善复苏做出了诸多努力,但处于休克状态的受伤患者仍面临着较高的死亡风险。识别针对这一人群的各中心在治疗结果上的差异,可能会为改善治疗效果提供思路。我们假设,治疗休克患者数量较多的创伤中心,其风险调整后的死亡率会更低。
我们查询了宾夕法尼亚创伤结局研究中2016年至2018年期间,年龄≥16岁、在一级和二级创伤中心就诊、初始收缩压(SBP)<90mmHg的受伤患者。我们排除了患有严重颅脑损伤(简明损伤评分[AIS]头部≥5)的患者,以及在研究期间来自休克患者数量≤10的中心的患者。主要暴露因素是中心层面休克患者数量的三分位数(低、中或高数量)。我们使用包含年龄、损伤严重程度、损伤机制和生理指标的多变量Cox比例风险模型,比较了按数量三分位数划分的风险调整后的死亡率。
在29个中心纳入的1805例患者中,915例(50.7%)死亡。低数量中心每年休克创伤患者的中位数为9例,中等数量中心为19.5例,高数量中心为37例。与低数量中心相比,高数量中心的损伤严重度评分(ISS)中位数更高(22对18,p<0.001)。高数量中心的原始死亡率为54.9%,中等数量中心为46.7%,低数量中心为42.9%。从到达急诊科(ED)到手术室(OR)的时间,高数量中心比低数量中心短(中位数47对78分钟),p = 0.003。在调整分析中,高数量中心(以低数量中心为参照)的风险比为0.76(95%可信区间0.59 - 0.97,p = 0.030)。
在对患者生理指标和损伤特征进行调整后,中心层面的患者数量与死亡率显著相关。未来的研究应致力于确定与高数量中心改善治疗结果相关的关键做法。此外,在开设新的创伤中心时,应考虑休克患者数量。