Erratum to “Grading of injury severity – What should be the prerequisites to separate multiply injured patients from those in critical condition and polytrauma?” [Injury 44 (3) (2013) 157–158]

Introduction: Reliable diagnosis of shock in multiply injured patients is still challenging in emergency care. Point-of-care tests could have the potential to improve shock diagnosis. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the impact of admission blood glucose on predicting shock in multiply injured patients.Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 who were treated in a level I trauma center from 01/2005 to 12/2014 was performed. Shock was defined by systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg and/or shock index ≥ 0.9 at admission. Laboratory shock parameters including glucose were measured simultaneously. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.Results: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients were analyzed of whom 93 patients (12.0%) died. Two hundred and fifty-nine patients (33.5%) were in shock at admission. Mortality was increased if shock was present at admission (18.1% vs. 9.0%,p < 0.001). Mean glucose was 9.6 ± 4.0 mmol/L if shock was present compared to 8.0 ± 3.0 mmol/L (p < 0.001). Admission glucose positively correlated with shock (Spearman rho = 0.2,p < 0.001). Glucose showed an AUC of 0.62 (95% CI [0.58–0.66],p < 0.001) with an optimal cut off value of 11.5 mmol/L. Patients with admission glucose of > 11.5 mmol/L had a 2.2-fold risk of shock (95% CI [1.4–3.4],p = 0.001). Admission blood glucose of > 11.5 mmol/L positively correlated with mortality too (Spearman rho = 0.65,p < 0.001). Patients had a 2.5-fold risk of dying (95% CI [1.3–4.8],p = 0.004).Discussion: Admission blood glucose was proven as an independent indicator of shock and mortality and, therefore, might help to identify multiply injured patients at particular risk.

Download Full-text

Simultaneous Casualty Admissions—Do they Affect Treatment in the Receiving Trauma Center?

World Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00268-021-06074-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Michel Paul Johan Teuben ◽

Carsten Mand ◽

Laura Moosdorf ◽

Kai Sprengel ◽

Alba Shehu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Injury Severity ◽

Damage Control ◽

Ct Scanning ◽

Mortality Rates ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Simultaneous Treatment ◽

Diagnostic Pathway ◽

Injured Patients ◽

The Impact ◽

Mean Time

Abstract Background Simultaneous trauma admissions expose medical professionals to increased workload. The impact of simultaneous trauma admissions on hospital allocation, therapy, and outcome is currently unclear. We hypothesized that multiple admission-scenarios impact the diagnostic pathway and outcome. Methods The TraumaRegister DGU® was utilized. Patients admitted between 2002–2015 with an ISS ≥ 9, treated with ATLS®- algorithms were included. Group ´IND´ included individual admissions, two individuals that were admitted within 60 min of each other were selected for group ´MULT´. Patients admitted within 10 min were considered as simultaneous (´SIM´) admissions. We compared patient and trauma characteristics, treatment, and outcomes between both groups. Results 132,382 admissions were included, and 4,462/3.4% MULTiple admissions were found. The SIM-group contained 1,686/1.3% patients. The overall median injury severity score was 17 and a mean age of 48 years was found. MULT patients were more frequently admitted to level-one trauma centers (68%) than individual trauma admissions were (58%, p < 0.001). Mean time to CT-scanning (24 vs. 26/28 min) was longer in MULT / SIM patients compared to individual admissions. No differences in utilization of damage control principles were seen. Moreover, mortality rates did not differ between the groups (13.1% in regular admissions and 11.4%/10,6% in MULT/SIM patients). Conclusion This study demonstrates that simultaneous treatment of injured patients is rare. Individuals treated in parallel with other patients were more often admitted to level-one trauma centers compared with individual patients. Although diagnostics take longer, treatment principles and mortality are equal in individual admissions and simultaneously admitted patients. More studies are required to optimize health care under these conditions.

Download Full-text

National temporal variation in major trauma in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Trauma ◽

10.1177/1460408620982264 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 146040862098226

Author(s):

Will Kieffer ◽

Daniel Michalik ◽

Jason Bernard ◽

Omar Bouamra ◽

Benedict Rogers

Keyword(s):

Northern Ireland ◽

Temporal Variation ◽

Major Trauma ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Research Network ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Trauma Outcomes ◽

Causes Of Mortality ◽

Injured Patients ◽

Time Of Admission

Introduction Trauma is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, but little is known of the temporal variation in major trauma across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Proper workforce and infrastructure planning requires identification of the caseload burden and its temporal variation. Materials and Methods The Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) database for admissions attending Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2018 was analysed. TARN records data on all trauma patients admitted to hospital who are alive at the time of admission to hospital. Major trauma was classified as an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15. Results A total of 158,440 cases were analysed. Case ascertainment was over 95% for 2013 onwards. There was a statistically significant variation in caseload by year (p < 0.0001), times of admissions (p < 0.0001), caseload admitted during weekends vs weekdays, 53% vs 47% (p < 0.0001), caseload by season with most patients admitted during summer (p < 0.0001). The ISS varied by time of admission with most patients admitted between 1800 and 0559 (p < 0.0001), weekend vs weekday with more severely injured patients admitted during the weekend (p < 0.0001) and by season p < 0.0001). Discussion and Conclusion: There is a significant national temporal variation in major trauma workload. The reasons are complex and there are multiple theories and confounding factors to explain it. This is the largest dataset for hospitals submitting to TARN which can help guide workforce and resource allocation to further improve trauma outcomes.

Download Full-text

Analysis of Profit and Loss by Injury Severity over 20 Years at a University Level I Trauma Center

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481608200732 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 82 (7) ◽

pp. 644-648

Author(s):

Zachary Dietch ◽

Jeffrey S. Young ◽

Steven D. Young

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Positive Margin ◽

Cost Data ◽

Hospital Charges ◽

Data Set ◽

Average Loss ◽

University Level ◽

Level I ◽

Injured Patients

We examined financial data from a University Level I Trauma Center from 1994 to 2014. We sought to investigate the hypothesis that lower injury severity correlates with increased profitability. We examined data from July 1994 to December 2014. This included hospital charges, Medicare cost data, final reimbursement, and payor source. Patients were separated into Injury Severity Score (ISS) groupings: 0 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 24, >24, and >14. Mean and standard deviation of mean are reported. We had complete data on 27,582 patients. Overall profit per case when subtracting costs from reimbursements was $1,932/case (total profit in unadjusted dollars = $53,475,828 or $2,673,791/year). When examined by ISS, profitability was significantly different between ISS 0 to 14 and 15 to 24, and > 24. When charge data were examined, the average loss per case was -$31,313 for the 27,582 patient data set. When using cost, and not charge data, overall trauma care had a positive margin. Severely injured patients (ISS > 14) were the most profitable, with a significantly higher profit per case than all other groupings. Only through examination of cost data can realistic determinations of trauma center profitability be made. If only charge data had been examined in this study, the overall loss from the 20-year period would have been $863,675,166 and not a profit of $53,475,828.

Download Full-text

A retrospective cohort study of 27,049 polytraumatized patients age 60 and above: identifying changes over 16 years

European Geriatric Medicine ◽

10.1007/s41999-021-00546-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Y. Kalbas ◽

M. Lempert ◽

F. Ziegenhain ◽

J. Scherer ◽

V. Neuhaus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Severe Trauma ◽

Diagnostic Tools ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Treatment Algorithms ◽

Injured Patients ◽

Over Time

Abstract Purpose The number of severely injured patients exceeding the age of 60 has shown a steep increase within the last decades. These patients present with numerous co-morbidities, polypharmacy, and increased frailty requiring an adjusted treatment approach. In this study, we establish an overview of changes we observed in demographics of older severe trauma patients from 2002 to 2017. Methods A descriptive analysis of the data from the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) was performed. Patients admitted to a level one trauma center in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 2002 and 2017, aged 60 years or older and with an injury severity score (ISS) over 15 were included. Patients were stratified into subgroups based on the admission: 2002–2005 (1), 2006–2009 (2), 2010–2013 (3) and 2014–2017 (4). Trauma and patient characteristics, diagnostics, treatment and outcome were compared. Results In total 27,049 patients with an average age of 73.9 years met the inclusion criteria. The majority were males (64%), and the mean ISS was 27.4. The proportion of patients 60 years or older [(23% (1) to 40% (4)] rose considerably over time. Trauma mechanisms changed over time and more specifically low falls (< 3 m) rose from 17.6% (1) to 40.1% (4). Altered injury patterns were also identified. Length-of-stay decreased from 28.9 (1) to 19.5 days (4) and the length-of-stay on ICU decreased from 17.1 (1) to 12.7 days (4). Mortality decreased from 40.5% (1) to 31.8% (4). Conclusion Length of stay and mortality decreased despite an increase in patient age. We ascribe this observation mainly to increased use of diagnostic tools, improved treatment algorithms, and the implementation of specialized trauma centers for older patients allowing interdisciplinary care.

Download Full-text