Division of Trauma, Critical Care, Burns, and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Division of Trauma, Critical Care, Burns, and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Injury. 2024 Jan;55(1):110972. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.110972. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
It remains unclear whether geriatrics benefit from care at higher-level trauma centers (TCs). We aimed to assess the impact of the TC verification level on frail geriatric trauma patients' outcomes. We hypothesized that frail patients cared for at higher-level TCs would have improved outcomes.
Patients ≥65 years were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database (2017-2019). Patients transferred, discharged from emergency department (ED), and those with head abbreviated injury scale >3 were excluded. 11-factor modified frailty index was utilized. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed. Outcomes included discharge to skilled nursing facility or rehab (SNF/rehab), withdrawal of life-supporting treatment (WLST), mortality, complications, failure-to-rescue, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay (LOS), and ventilator days.
110,680 patients were matched (Frail:55,340, Non-Frail:55,340). Mean age was 79 (7), 90% presented following falls, and median ISS was 5 [2-9]. Level-I/II TCs had lower rates of discharge to SNF/rehab (52.6% vs. 55.8% vs. 60.9%; p < 0.001), failure-to-rescue (0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.6%;p = 0.005), and higher rates of WLST (2.4% vs. 2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) compared to level-III regardless of injury severity and frailty. Compared to Level-III centers, Level-I/II centers had higher complications among moderate-to-severely injured patients (4.1% vs. 3.3% vs. 2.7%; p < 0.001), and lower mortality only among frail patients regardless of injury severity (1.8% vs. 1.5% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001). Patients at Level-I TCs were more likely to be admitted to ICU, and had longer hospital LOS and ventilator days compared to Level-II and III TCs (p < 0.05).
Frailty may play an important role when triaging geriatric trauma patients. In fact, the benefit of care at higher-level TCs is particularly evident for patients who are frail. Level III centers may be underperforming in providing access to palliative and end-of-life care.
目前尚不清楚老年患者是否能从高级别创伤中心(TC)获得更好的治疗效果。本研究旨在评估 TC 验证级别对脆弱老年创伤患者结局的影响。我们假设在高级别 TC 接受治疗的脆弱患者会有更好的结局。
从创伤质量改进计划(TQIP)数据库(2017-2019 年)中确定年龄≥65 岁的患者。排除了转院、从急诊科出院以及头部简明损伤量表评分>3 的患者。采用 11 项改良脆弱指数进行评估。采用 1:1 倾向评分匹配。结局包括入住康复或疗养机构(SNF/康复)、停止生命支持治疗(WLST)、死亡率、并发症、救治失败、入住重症监护病房(ICU)、住院时间(LOS)和呼吸机使用天数。
共匹配了 110680 例患者(脆弱:55340 例,非脆弱:55340 例)。平均年龄为 79(7)岁,90%的患者因跌倒受伤,中位 ISS 为 5[2-9]。I/II 级 TC 出院至康复或疗养机构的比例较低(52.6%比 55.8%比 60.9%;p<0.001),救治失败的比例较高(0.5%比 0.4%比 0.6%;p=0.005),停止生命支持治疗的比例较高(2.4%比 2.1%比 0.3%;p<0.001),无论损伤严重程度和脆弱程度如何,与 III 级 TC 相比。与 III 级中心相比,I/II 级中心的中重度损伤患者并发症发生率较高(4.1%比 3.3%比 2.7%;p<0.001),仅脆弱患者的死亡率较低,无论损伤严重程度如何(1.8%比 1.5%比 2.6%;p<0.001)。I 级 TC 患者更有可能入住 ICU,与 II 级和 III 级 TC 相比,住院时间和呼吸机使用时间更长(p<0.05)。
脆弱可能是老年创伤患者分诊的一个重要因素。事实上,在高级别 TC 接受治疗的益处,对于脆弱的患者来说尤为明显。III 级中心在提供姑息治疗和临终关怀方面的表现可能不佳。