Geriatric Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

Background Given their mostly rural/suburban locations, level II trauma centers (TCs) may offer greater exposure to and experience in managing geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that geriatric patients would have improved outcomes at level II TCs compared to level I TCs. Methods The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database was retrospectively queried from 2003 to 2017 for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma patients admitted to level I and II TCs in Pennsylvania. Patient demographics, injury severity, and clinical outcomes were compared to assess differences in care between level I and II TCs. A multivariate logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of care at level I vs II TCs on mortality, complications, and functional status at discharge (FSD). The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was retrospectively queried for geriatric (age ≥65 years) trauma admissions to state-accredited level I or level II TCs in 2013. Results 112 648 patients met inclusion criteria. The proportion of geriatric trauma patients across level I and level II TCs were determined to be 29.1% and 36.2% ( P <.001), respectively. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.13; P = .375), complications (AOR: 1.25; P = .080) or FSD (AOR: 1.09; P = .493) when comparing level I to level II TCs. Adjusted analysis from the NTDB (n = 144 622) also found that mortality was not associated with TC level (AOR: 1.04; P = .182). Discussion Level I and level II TCs had similar rates of mortality, complications, and functional outcomes despite a higher proportion (but lower absolute number) of geriatric patients being admitted to level II TCs. Future consideration for location of centers of excellence in geriatric trauma should include both level I and II TCs.

Download Full-text

Failure to Rescue in Geriatric Trauma: The Impact of Any Complication Increases with Age and Injury Severity in Elderly Trauma Patients

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/00031348211054072 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 000313482110540

Author(s):

David P. Stonko ◽

Eric W. Etchill ◽

Katherine A. Giuliano ◽

Sandra R. DiBrito ◽

Daniel Eisenson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Geriatric Patients ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Data Bank ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Failure To Rescue ◽

Elderly Trauma Patients ◽

Injured Patients ◽

The Impact ◽

Overall Mortality

Introduction The interaction of increasing age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and complications is not well described in geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that failure to rescue rate from any complication worsens with age and injury severity. Methods The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was queried for injured patients aged 65 years or older from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. Demographics and injury characteristics were used to compare groups. Mortality rates were calculated across subgroups of age and ISS, and captured with heatmaps. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results 614,496 geriatric trauma patients were included; 151,880 (24.7%) experienced a complication. Those with complications tended to be older, female, non-white, have non-blunt mechanism, higher ISS, and hypotension on arrival. Overall mortality was highest (19%) in the oldest (≥86 years old) and most severely injured (ISS ≥ 25) patients, with constant age increasing across each ISS group was associated with a 157% increase in overall mortality ( P < .001, 95% CI: 148-167%). Holding ISS stable, increasing age group was associated with a 48% increase in overall mortality ( P < .001, 95% CI: 44-52%). After controlling for standard demographic variables at presentation, the existence of any complication was an independent predictor of overall mortality in geriatric patients (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 2.2-2.4). Conclusions Any complication was an independent risk factor for mortality, and scaled with increasing age and ISS in geriatric patients. Differences in failure to rescue between populations may reflect critical differences in physiologic vulnerability that could represent targets for interventions.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Blunt Abdominal Injury in Level-I and II Pediatric Trauma Centers

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/00031348211033535 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. 000313482110335

Author(s):

Aryan Haratian ◽

Areg Grigorian ◽

Karan Rajalingam ◽

Matthew Dolich ◽

Sebastian Schubl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Abdominal Surgery ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Pediatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Improvement Program ◽

Blunt Abdominal Injury ◽

Level Ii ◽

American College Of Surgeons ◽

Level I

Introduction An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers. Methods The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed. Results 970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05). Conclusion While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.

Download Full-text

Restrictive Transfusion in Geriatric Trauma Patients

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481608200129 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 82 (1) ◽

pp. 85-88

Author(s):

Ashley N. Deleon ◽

John M. Uecker ◽

Susan V. Stafford ◽

Sadia Ali ◽

Adam Clark ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Injury Severity ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Elderly Age ◽

Restrictive Transfusion ◽

Liberal Group ◽

Strategy Versus ◽

Level I ◽

Red Cell Transfusion ◽

Elderly Trauma Patients

To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red cell transfusion was safe in elderly trauma patients, we compared those treated with a restrictive transfusion strategy versus those who were liberally transfused. We performed a retrospective study of elderly (age ≥ 70 years) trauma patients admitted to our Level I trauma center from 2005 to 2013. Patients with a hemoglobin (Hg) < 10 g/dL after 48 hours were included. We excluded patients with an Injury Severity Score > 25 or active cardiac ischemia. Patients who were transfused for an Hg < 10 g/dL (liberal group) were compared to those who were transfused for an Hg< 7 g/dL (restrictive group). There were 382 patients included, 229 and 153 in the liberal and restrictive transfusion groups, respectively. All patients in the liberal group and 20 per cent of patients in the restrictive group received a transfusion ( P < 0.0001). Patients in the liberal group had more overall complications (52 vs 32%, P = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, receiving a transfusion was an independent risk factor to develop a complication [odds ratio = 2.3 (1.5–3.6), P < 0.0001]. For survivors, patients in the liberal group spent more days in the hospital (nine versus seven days, P = 0.007) and intensive care unit (two versus one day, P = 0.01). There was no difference in mortality (3 vs 4%, P = 0.82). In conclusion, restrictive transfusion appears to be safe in elderly trauma patients and may be associated with decreased complications and shortened length of stay.

Download Full-text

The Impact of American College of Surgeons Trauma Center Designation and Outcomes after Early Thoracotomy: A National Trauma Databank Analysis

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481207800123 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 78 (1) ◽

pp. 36-41 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Marko Bukur ◽

Bernardino Castelo Branco ◽

Kenji Inaba ◽

Ramon Cestero ◽

Leslie Kobayashi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

National Trauma ◽

Level Ii ◽

Pressure Time ◽

Significant Difference ◽

American College Of Surgeons ◽

Level I ◽

The Impact

Trauma centers are designated by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) into four different levels based on resources, volume, and scientific and educational commitment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between ACS center designation and outcomes after early thoracotomy for trauma. The National Trauma Databank (v. 7.0) was used to identify all patients who required early thoracotomy. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were extracted. Patients were categorized according to ACS trauma center designation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of ACS trauma center designation on mortality. From 2002 to 2006, 1834 (77.4%) patients were admitted to a Level I ACS verified trauma center, 474 (20.0%) to a Level II, and 59 (3.6%) to a Level III/IV facility. After adjusting for differences between the groups, there were no significant differences in mortality (overall: 53.3% for Level I, 63.1% for Level II, and 52.5% for Level III/IV, adjusted P = 0.417; or for patients arriving in cardiac arrest: 74.9% vs 87.1% vs 85.0%, P = 0.261). Subgroup analysis did not show any significant difference in survival irrespective of mechanism of injury. Glasgow Coma Scale score # 8, Injury Severity Score >16, no admission systolic blood pressure, time from admission to thoracotomy, and nonteaching hospitals were found to be independent predictors of death. For trauma patients who have sustained injuries requiring early thoracotomy, ACS trauma center designation did not significantly impact mortality. Nonteaching institutions however, were independently associated with poorer outcomes after early thoracotomy. These findings may have important implications in educational commitment of institutions. Further prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted.

Download Full-text

A Comprehensive Investigation of Comorbidities, Mechanisms, Injury Patterns, and Outcomes in Geriatric Blunt Trauma Patients

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481608201119 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 82 (11) ◽

pp. 1055-1062 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Carlos V. R. Brown ◽

Kevin Rix ◽

Amanda L. Klein ◽

Brent Ford ◽

Pedro G. R. Teixeira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Injury Severity Score ◽

Blunt Trauma ◽

Severity Score ◽

Geriatric Patients ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Older Age ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Injury Patterns ◽

Abbreviated Injury Scale

The geriatric population is growing and trauma providers are often tasked with caring for injuries in the elderly. There is limited information regarding injury patterns in geriatric trauma patients stratified by mechanism of injury. This study intends to investigate the comorbidities, mechanisms, injury patterns, and outcomes in geriatric blunt trauma patients. A retrospective study of the 2012 National Trauma Databank was performed. Adult blunt trauma patients were identified; geriatric (>/=65) patients were compared with younger (<65) patients regarding admission demographics and vital signs, mechanism and severity of injury, and comorbidities. The primary outcome was injuries sustained and secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, and ventilator days. There were 589,830 blunt trauma patients who met the inclusion criteria, including 183,209 (31%) geriatric and 406,621 (69%) nongeriatric patients. Falls were more common in geriatric patients (79 vs 29%, P < 0.0001). Geriatric patients less often had an Injury Severity Score >/=16 (18 vs 20%, P < 0.0001) but more often a head Abbreviated Injury Scale >/=3 (24 vs 18%, P < 0.0001) and lower extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale >/=3 (24% vs 8%, P < 0.0001). After logistic regression older age was an independent risk factor for mortality for the overall population and across all mechanisms. Falls are the most common mechanism for geriatric trauma patients. Geriatric patients overall present with a lower Injury Severity Score, but more often sustain severe injuries to the head and lower extremities. Injury patterns vary significantly between older and younger patients when stratified by mechanism. Mortality is significantly higher for geriatric trauma patients and older age is independently associated with mortality across all mechanisms.

Download Full-text

Should All Severely Injured Pediatric Patients be Treated at Pediatric Level I Trauma Centers? A National Trauma Data Bank Study

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481508101003 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 81 (10) ◽

pp. 927-931

Author(s):

Shin Miyata ◽

Tobias Haltmeier ◽

Kenji Inaba ◽

Kazuhide Matsushima ◽

Catherine Goodhue ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Pediatric Patients ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Pediatric Trauma ◽

Data Bank ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

National Trauma ◽

Level Ii ◽

National Trauma Data Bank ◽

Level I

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma stratification system for trauma centers presumes that increasing levels of resources will improve patient outcomes. Although some supportive data exist in adult trauma, there is a paucity of evidence demonstrating improved survival in pediatric trauma when patients are treated primarily at Level I versus Level II pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that there is no difference in the mortality of comparably injured pediatric patients treated at these two types of facilities. The study population consists of all severely injured pediatric patients (18 years old or younger, injury severity score > 15) registered in the National Trauma Data Bank, treated in designated pediatric trauma centers. A total of 13,803 patients were included in the analysis and were separated into two groups: Pediatric Level I trauma center (n = 9690) and Pediatric Level II trauma center (n = 4113). Although analysis of the clinical characteristics of the unmatched groups showed significant differences including mortality rate (11.7% vs 15.4%, P < 0.001), case matching technique, comparing 2956 pairs, successfully eliminated demographic differences and, when adjusted for injury severity, showed no difference in mortality between center types (10.0% vs 10.1%, P = 0.966, odds ratio of mortality = 0.996 and 95% confidence interval = 0.841–1.180). Subgroup analyses including Glasgow Coma Scale < 9, need for immediate procedures, and ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases) code groupings indicative of serious injury also failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in mortality between trauma center types.

Download Full-text

The GERtality Score: The Development of a Simple Tool to Help Predict in-Hospital Mortality in Geriatric Trauma Patients

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10071362 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (7) ◽

pp. 1362

Author(s):

Julian Scherer ◽

Yannik Kalbas ◽

Franziska Ziegenhain ◽

Valentin Neuhaus ◽

Rolf Lefering ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Mortality ◽

Geriatric Patients ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Scoring Systems ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Body Region ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Severely Injured ◽

The Novel ◽

Packed Red Blood Cells

Feasible and predictive scoring systems for severely injured geriatric patients are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a scoring system for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in severely injured geriatric trauma patients. The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) was utilized. European geriatric patients (≥65 years) admitted between 2008 and 2017 were included. Relevant patient variables were implemented in the GERtality score. By conducting a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, a comparison with the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and the Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC-II) Score was performed. A total of 58,055 geriatric trauma patients (mean age: 77 years) were included. Univariable analysis led to the following variables: age ≥ 80 years, need for packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfusion prior to intensive care unit (ICU), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥ 3, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 13, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) in any body region ≥ 4. The maximum GERtality score was 5 points. A mortality rate of 72.4% was calculated in patients with the maximum GERtality score. Mortality rates of 65.1 and 47.5% were encountered in patients with GERtality scores of 4 and 3 points, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the novel GERtality score was 0.803 (GTOS: 0.784; RISC-II: 0.879). The novel GERtality score is a simple and feasible score that enables an adequate prediction of the probability of mortality in polytraumatized geriatric patients by using only five specific parameters.

Download Full-text

Location of Injury and Other Factors Associated With Increased Survival Among Severely Injured Geriatric Trauma Patients

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/00031348211050578 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 000313482110505

Author(s):

Paige C. Newman ◽

Tawnya M. Vernon ◽

Kellie E. Bresz ◽

Jennifer A. T. Schwartz

Keyword(s):

Geriatric Patients ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Severely Injured ◽

Retrospective Case ◽

Benzodiazepine Use ◽

Trauma Outcome ◽

Trauma Injury ◽

Trauma Activation

Background Patients with a Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) < .5 are termed “unexpected survivors.” There is scarce information published on this subset of geriatric patients whose survival is an anomaly. Methods This is a retrospective case-control study examining all geriatric patients (age ≥65) not expected to survive (TRISS<.5) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. We selected 10 clinically important variables for logistic regression analysis as possible factors that may improve survival. Results 1336 patients were included, 395 (29.6%) were unexpected survivors. Factors that improved survival odds are the following: Place of injury: street/highway (AOR:0.51; 95% CI: .36-.73, P < .001) and residential institution (AOR:0.46; 95% CI: .21-.98, P = .043); and presence of Benzodiazepines (AOR:0.49; 95% CI: .31-.77, P = .002) or ethanol (AOR:0.57; 95% CI: .34-.97, P = .040). Factors that decreased survival odds are the following: Hypotension (AOR: 8.59; 95% CI: 4.33-17.01, P < .001) and hypothermia (AOR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10-2.28, P = .014). Gender, race/ethnicity, blood transfusion in first 24 hours, shift of presentation to Emergency Department, place of injury (farm, industrial, recreational, or public building), use of Tetrahydrocannabinol, amphetamines or opioids, and level of trauma activation did not impact survival. Discussion Location of injury (street/highway and residential institution) and ethanol or benzodiazepine use led to a significant increased survival in severely injured geriatric patients. Hypotension and hypothermia led to decreased survival. Future studies should determine possible reasons these factors lead to survival (and identify additional factors) to focus efforts in these areas to improve outcomes in geriatric trauma.

Download Full-text

How health service delivery guides the allocation of major trauma patients in the intensive care units of the inclusive (hub and spoke) trauma system of the Emilia Romagna Region (Italy). A cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016415 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e016415 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Arturo Chieregato ◽

Annalisa Volpi ◽

Giovanni Gordini ◽

Chiara Ventura ◽

Marco Barozzi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

Intensive Care Units ◽

Injury Severity ◽

Trauma System ◽

Integrated System ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Hub And Spoke ◽

Level Ii ◽

Level I

ObjectiveTo evaluate cross-sectional patient distribution and standardised 30-day mortality in the intensive care units (ICU) of an inclusive hub and spoke trauma system.SettingICUs of the Integrated System for Trauma Patient Care (SIAT) of Emilia-Romagna, an Italian region with a population of approximately 4.5 million.Participants5300 patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 were admitted to the regional ICUs and recorded in the Regional Severe Trauma Registry between 2007 and 2012. Patients were classified by the Abbreviated Injury Score as follows: (1) traumatic brain injury (2) multiple injuriesand (3) extracranial lesions. The SIATs were divided into those with at least one neurosurgical level II trauma centre (TC) and those with a neurosurgical unit in the level I TC only.ResultsA higher proportion of patients (out of all SIAT patients) were admitted to the level I TC at the head of the SIAT with no additional neurosurgical facilities (1083/1472, 73.6%) compared with the level I TCs heading SIATs with neurosurgical level II TCs (1905/3815; 49.9%). A similar percentage of patients were admitted to level I TCs (1905/3815; 49.9%) and neurosurgical level II TCs (1702/3815, 44.6%) in the SIATs with neurosurgical level II TCs. Observed versus expected mortality (OE) was not statistically different among the three types of centre with a neurosurgical unit; however, the best mean OE values were observed in the level I TC in the SIAT with no neurosurgical unit.ConclusionThe Hub and Spoke concept was fully applied in the SIAT in which neurosurgical facilities were available in the level I TC only. The performance of this system suggests that competition among level I and level II TCs in the same Trauma System reduces performance in both. The density of neurosurgical centres must be considered by public health system governors before implementing trauma systems.

Download Full-text