van Ameijden Sara, Boele van Hensbroek Pieter, Boersma Doeke, van Zutphen Stefan, Poeze Martijn, de Jongh Mariska
Network Emergency Care Brabant, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025 Jun 16;51(1):230. doi: 10.1007/s00068-025-02897-5.
Undertriage remains a challenge within the severely injured older patients. The survival benefit in major trauma centres (MTCs) compared to non-major trauma centres (nMTCs) has been disputed. This study aimed to assess the differences in patient characteristics of severely injured older patients treated in MTCs and nMTCs and to regard whether these characteristics could be related to pre-hospital triage decisions and influence clinical outcomes in MTCs and nMTCs.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted, using the Dutch National Trauma Registry to identify all patients of 70 and above with an ISS ≥ 16 during 2016-2022. Patient characteristics and outcomes between MTCs, nMTCs and directly transferred patients were compared. Backward logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors predicting mortality.
A total of 10,899 patients were included. Patients in nMTCs harboured more octo- and nonagenarians than MTCs (44.6% vs. 37.2% and 15.1% vs. 6.7% resp., p < 0.001). The ISS was significantly lower in nMTCs (median 19 [IQR 17-25] vs. 22 [17-27], p < 0.001), with severe head injury and a low GCS being more prevalent in MTCs. High energy falls were more often observed in MTCs (15.6% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). Mortality was significantly lower in nMTCs (OR 0.59, 95%-CI 0.54-0.65), with a GCS 3-8 strongly associated with an increased risk for mortality in both nMTCs and MTCs (OR 19.93, p < 0.001 and OR 7.87, p < 0.001 resp.).
The differences in patients presented in MTCs and nMTCs indicate factors contributing to undertriage; severely injured older patients with recognizable injuries and trauma mechanisms are more likely to be presented in a MTC. Whether feasible care for severely injured older patients should be provided in MTCs or nMTCs should not only be dependent on ISS and mortality rates; patient-centred care goals harbouring broader perspectives as frailty and health- and quality-of-life benefit of aggressive injury treatment should also contribute in triage- and treatment decision-making.
Level III, prognostic/epidemiological.
在重伤老年患者中,分诊不足仍然是一个挑战。与非主要创伤中心(nMTCs)相比,主要创伤中心(MTCs)的生存获益一直存在争议。本研究旨在评估在MTCs和nMTCs接受治疗的重伤老年患者的特征差异,并探讨这些特征是否与院前分诊决策相关,以及是否会影响MTCs和nMTCs的临床结局。
进行了一项回顾性队列研究,使用荷兰国家创伤登记处来识别2016年至2022年期间所有年龄在70岁及以上、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)≥16的患者。比较了MTCs、nMTCs和直接转诊患者的患者特征和结局。进行了向后逻辑回归分析以确定预测死亡率的因素。
共纳入10899例患者。nMTCs中的患者八旬老人和九旬老人比MTCs中的更多(分别为44.6%对37.2%和15.1%对6.7%,p<0.001)。nMTCs中的ISS显著更低(中位数19[四分位间距17 - 25]对22[17 - 27],p<0.001),严重颅脑损伤和低格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)在MTCs中更常见。MTCs中更常观察到高能量跌倒(15.6%对7.7%,p<0.001)。nMTCs中的死亡率显著更低(比值比0.59,95%置信区间0.54 - 0.65),GCS 3 - 8与nMTCs和MTCs中的死亡风险增加均密切相关(分别为比值比19.93,p<0.001和比值比7.87,p<0.001)。
MTCs和nMTCs中患者的差异表明了导致分诊不足的因素;有可识别损伤和创伤机制的重伤老年患者更有可能被送到MTC。对于重伤老年患者,是否在MTCs或nMTCs提供可行的治疗不应仅取决于ISS和死亡率;以患者为中心的护理目标,包括更广泛的视角,如衰弱以及积极损伤治疗对健康和生活质量的益处,也应有助于分诊和治疗决策。
III级,预后/流行病学研究。