Validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) in Swedish trauma populations.

BACKGROUND: Trauma survival prediction models can be used for quality assessment in trauma populations. The Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) has been updated recently and validated internally (NORMIT 2). The aim of this observational study was to compare the accuracy of NORMIT 1 and 2 in two Swedish trauma populations. METHODS: Adult patients registered in the national trauma registry during 2014-2016 were eligible for inclusion. The study populations comprised the total national trauma (NT) population, and a subpopulation of patients admitted to a single level I trauma centre (TC). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Model validation included receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and GiViTI calibration belts. The calibration was also assessed in subgroups of severely injured patients (New Injury Severity Score (NISS) over 15). RESULTS: A total of 26 504 patients were included. Some 18·7 per cent of patients in the NT population and 2·6 per cent in the TC subpopulation were excluded owing to missing data, leaving 21 554 and 3972 respectively for analysis. NORMIT 1 and 2 showed excellent ability to distinguish between survivors and non-survivors in both populations, but poor agreement between predicted and observed outcome in the NT population with overestimation of survival, including in the subgroup with NISS over 15. In the TC subpopulation, NORMIT 1 underestimated survival irrespective of injury severity, but NORMIT 2 showed good calibration both in the total subpopulation and the subgroup with NISS over 15. CONCLUSION: NORMIT 2 is well suited to predict survival in a Swedish trauma centre population, irrespective of injury severity. Both NORMIT 1 and 2 performed poorly in a more heterogeneous national population of injured patients.

ANTECEDENTES: Los modelos de predicción de supervivencia en los traumatismos pueden ser utilizados para la evaluación de la calidad en las poblaciones con traumatismos. Recientemente, el modelo noruego de predicción de supervivencia en traumatismos (NORMIT) se ha actualizado y validado internamente (NORMIT 2). El objetivo de este estudio observacional fue comparar la precisión de los modelos NORMIT 1 y 2 en dos poblaciones suecas con traumatismos. MÉTODOS: Pacientes adultos registrados en el registro nacional de traumatismos durante 2014-2016 fueron elegibles para el estudio. Las poblaciones de estudio eran: (1) la población total nacional de traumatismos (national trauma, NT) y (2) una subpoblación de pacientes ingresados en un único centro de trauma de nivel I (trauma centre, TC). El resultado primario fue la mortalidad a los 30 días. La validación del modelo incluyó curvas de características operativas del receptor y cinturones GiViTI de calibración. La calibración también se evaluó en subgrupos de pacientes con lesiones graves (New Injury Severity Score, NISS >15). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 26.504 pacientes. La exclusión por falta de datos fue del 18,7% en la población NT (n = 21.554) y del 2,6% en la población TC (n = 3.972). Los modelos NORMIT 1 y 2 mostraron una habilidad excelente para distinguir entre supervivientes y no supervivientes en ambas poblaciones, pero con un grado de acuerdo pobre entre el resultado predicho y el observado en la población NT, con sobreestimación de la supervivencia incluido el subgrupo de NISS >15. En la subpoblación TC, NORMIT 1 subestimó la supervivencia independientemente de la gravedad de la lesión, pero NORMIT 2 mostró una buena calibración tanto en la subpoblación total, como en el subgrupo NISS >15. CONCLUSIÓN: El modelo NORMIT 2 es muy apropiado para predecir la supervivencia en la población de un centro de traumatismos sueco independientemente de la gravedad de la lesión. Los modelos tanto NORMIT 1 como NORMIT 2 funcionan mal en una población de traumatismos nacional más heterogenea.

Excellent agreement of Norwegian trauma registry data compared to corresponding data in electronic patient records.

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) is designed to monitor and improve the quality and outcome of trauma care delivered by Norwegian trauma hospitals. Patient care is evaluated through specific quality indicators, which are constructed of variables reported to the registry by certified registrars. Having high-quality data recorded in the registry is essential for the validity, trust and use of data. This study aims to perform a data quality check of a subset of core data elements in the registry by assessing agreement between data in the NTR and corresponding data in electronic patient records (EPRs). METHODS: We validated 49 of the 118 variables registered in the NTR by comparing those with the corresponding ones in electronic patient records for 180 patients with a trauma diagnosis admitted in 2019 at eight public hospitals. Agreement was quantified by calculating observed agreement, Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC1) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 27 nominal variables, quadratic weighted Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's second agreement coefficient (AC2) for five ordinal variables. For nine continuous, one date and seven time variables, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Almost perfect agreement (AC1 /AC2/ ICC > 0.80) was observed for all examined variables. Nominal and ordinal variables showed Gwet's agreement coefficients ranging from 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91) to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00). For continuous and time variables there were detected high values of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91) and 1.00 (CI 95%: 1.00-1.00). While missing values in both the NTR and EPRs were in general negligeable, we found a substantial amount of missing registrations for a continuous "Base excess" in the NTR. For some of the time variables missing values both in the NTR and EPRs were high. CONCLUSION: All tested variables in the Norwegian Trauma Registry displayed excellent agreement with the corresponding variables in electronic patient records. Variables in the registry that showed missing data need further examination.

Clinical and cellular effects of hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy in major injury.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy have long been considered critical combinations after severe injury. The aim of this review was to give a clinical update on this triad in severely injured patients. METHODS: A non-systematic literature search on hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy after major injury was undertaken, with a focus on clinical data from the past 5 years. RESULTS: Hypothermia (less than 35 °C) is reported in 1·6-13·3 per cent of injured patients. The occurrence of acidosis is difficult to estimate, but usually follows other physiological disturbances. Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) has both endogenous and exogenous components. Endogenous acute traumatic coagulopathy is associated with shock and hypoperfusion. Exogenous effects of dilution from fluid resuscitation and consumption through bleeding and loss of coagulation factors further add to TIC. TIC is present in 10-34 per cent of injured patients, depending on injury severity, acidosis, hypothermia and hypoperfusion. More expedient detection of coagulopathy is needed. Thromboelastography may be a useful point-of-care measurement. Management of TIC is controversial, with conflicting reports on blood component therapy in terms of both outcome and ratios of blood products to other fluids, particularly in the context of civilian trauma. CONCLUSION: The triad of hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy after severe trauma appears to be fairly rare but does carry a poor prognosis. Future research should define modes of early detection and targeted therapy.

Feasibility of comparing core data from existing trauma registries in scandinavia. Reaching for a Scandinavian major trauma outcome study (MTOS).

BACKGROUND: The organisation of trauma care in Scandinavia has several similarities, including trauma registries, but so far there are limited amount of research on efficiency and outcome. Data and results from trauma outcome studies like the US MTOS are not fully applicable to the Scandinavian trauma population. AIMS: To reveal the feasibility of using data from existing trauma registries of major hospitals in Scandinavia, for a minimal common dataset, in a joint, prospective Scandinavian MTOS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected data points, data point definitions, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, from the major trauma registries of the Swedish trauma registry standard, three university hospitals in Denmark, one university hospital in Finland, and the Norwegian National Trauma Registry. The collected material was compared to reveal common data points, inclusion criteria, and the compatibility of data point definitions. RESULTS: The median number of data points was 147 (range 71-257; interquartile range = 90-205). Most registries lacked precise data definition catalogues. Only 16 data points could be considered as common, of which just a few were core trauma data. Four data points had the same data category options but were not considered having the same data point definitions. The inclusion criteria were not uniform. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma registries in Scandinavia have few common core data and data point definitions. There were data points for calculating the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) but the inclusion criteria varied too much to ensure a valid comparison. A consensus process for a joint trauma core data set will be initiated by the Scandinavian Networking Group for Trauma and Emergency Management (SCANTEM) to increase research on trauma efficiency and outcome.