Incidence of multiple organ failure in adult polytrauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postinjury multiple organ failure (MOF) is the leading cause of late death in trauma patients. Although MOF was first described 50 years ago, its definition, epidemiology, and change in incidence over time are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the incidence of MOF in the context of different MOF definitions, study inclusion criteria, and its change over time. METHODS: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between 1977 and 2022 in English and German. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed when applicable. RESULTS: The search returned 11,440 results, of which 842 full-text articles were screened. Multiple organ failure incidence was reported in 284 studies that used 11 unique inclusion criteria and 40 MOF definitions. One hundred six studies published from 1992 to 2022 were included. Weighted MOF incidence by publication year fluctuated from 11% to 56% without significant decrease over time. Multiple organ failure was defined using four scoring systems (Denver, Goris, Marshall, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA]) and 10 different cutoff values. Overall, 351,942 trauma patients were included, of whom 82,971 (24%) developed MOF. The weighted incidences of MOF from meta-analysis of 30 eligible studies were as follows: 14.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1-17.2%) in Denver score >3, 12.7% (95% CI, 9.3-16.1%) in Denver score >3 with blunt injuries only, 28.6% (95% CI, 12-45.1%) in Denver score >8, 25.6% (95% CI, 10.4-40.7%) in Goris score >4, 29.9% (95% CI, 14.9-45%) in Marshall score >5, 20.3% (95% CI, 9.4-31.2%) in Marshall score >5 with blunt injuries only, 38.6% (95% CI, 33-44.3%) in SOFA score >3, 55.1% (95% CI, 49.7-60.5%) in SOFA score >3 with blunt injuries only, and 34.8% (95% CI, 28.7-40.8%) in SOFA score >5. CONCLUSION: The incidence of postinjury MOF varies largely because of lack of a consensus definition and study population. Until an international consensus is reached, further research will be hindered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis; Level III.

Prehospital activation of a coordinated multidisciplinary hospital response in preparation for patients with severe hemorrhage: A statewide data linkage study of the New South Wales "Code Crimson" pathway.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable death in trauma. Prehospital medical teams can streamline access to massive transfusion and definitive hemorrhage control by alerting in-hospital trauma teams of suspected life-threatening bleeding in unstable patients. This study reports the initial experience of an Australian "Code Crimson" (CC) pathway facilitating early multidisciplinary care for these patients. METHODS: This data-linkage study combined prehospital databases with a trauma registry of patients with an Injury Severity Score greater than 12 between 2017 and 2019. Four groups were created; prehospital CC activation with and without in-hospital links and patients with inpatient treatment consistent with CC, without one being activated. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using capture-recapture methodology to replace the missing cell (no prehospital CC and Injury Severity Score < 12). RESULTS: Of 72 prehospital CC patients, 50 were linked with hospital data. Of 154 potentially missed patients, 42 had a prehospital link. Most CC patients were young men who sustained blunt trauma and required more prehospital interventions than non-CC patients. Code Crimson patients had more multisystem trauma, especially complex thoracic injuries (80%), while missed CC patients more frequently had single organ injuries (59%). Code Crimson patients required fewer hemorrhage control procedures (60% vs. 86%). Lower mortality was observed in CC patients despite greater hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Despite a low sensitivity (0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.61) and good specificity (0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), the positive likelihood ratio was acceptable (6.42; 95% CI, 3.30-12.48). CONCLUSION: The initiation of a statewide CC process was highly specific for the need for hemorrhage control intervention in hospital, but further work is required to improve the sensitivity of prehospital activation. Patients who had a CC activation sustained more multisystem trauma but had lower mortality than those who did not. These results guide measures to improve this pathway. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Determinants of long-term unplanned readmission and mortality following self-inflicted and non-self-inflicted major injury: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of major injury and identify determinants of long-term unplanned readmission and mortality after self-inflicted and non-self-inflicted injury to inform potential readmission screening. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study of 11,269 individuals aged ≥ 15 years hospitalised for a major injury during 2013-2017 in New South Wales, Australia. Unplanned readmission and mortality up to 27-month post-injury were examined. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of unplanned readmission. RESULTS: During the 27-month follow-up, 2700 (24.8%) individuals with non-self-inflicted and 98 (26.1%) with self-inflicted injuries had an unplanned readmission. Individuals with an anxiety-related disorder and a non-self-inflicted injury who were discharged home were three times more likely (OR: 3.27; 95%CI 2.28-4.69) or if they were discharged to a psychiatric facility were four times more likely (OR: 4.11; 95%CI 1.07-15.80) to be readmitted. Compared to individuals aged 15-24 years, individuals aged ≥ 65 years were 3 times more likely to be readmitted (OR 3.12; 95%CI 2.62-3.70). Individuals with one (OR 1.60; 95%CI 1.39-1.84) or ≥ 2 (OR 1.88; 95%CI 1.52-2.32) comorbidities, or who had a drug-related dependence (OR 1.88; 95%CI 1.52-2.31) were more likely to be readmitted. The post-discharge age-adjusted mortality rate following a self-inflicted injury (35.6%; 95%CI 29.9-41.8) was higher than for individuals with a non-self-inflicted injury (11.0%; 95%CI 10.4-11.8). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned readmission after injury is associated with injury intent, age, and comorbid health. Screening for anxiety and drug-related dependence after major injury, accompanied by service referrals and post-discharge follow-up, has potential to prevent readmission.

Spine surgery outcome in patients who sought compensation after a motor vehicle accident: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Back and neck pain are common after road traffic injury and are treated by spine surgery in some cases. This study aimed to describe the outcomes of spine surgery in people who made an insurance claim after road traffic accidents without an associated spinal fracture or dislocation. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort based on insurers' data of Compulsory Third Party (CTP) claims. File audit and data extraction were undertaken using a study-specific proforma. Primary outcomes were ongoing pain and symptoms, complications, return to work and pre-injury duties, and ongoing treatment 2 years following spine surgery. Secondary outcomes were health care costs based on data provided by the insurers. RESULTS: After screening 766 files, 90 cases were included (female: 48; mean age: 46 years). Among the subjects who were working prior the injury, the rate of return to work was 37% and return to pre-injury duties was 23% 2 years following the surgery. The average number of appointments with health care professionals in the 1 year after surgery was 21, compared to 10 for the 1 year prior to surgery (p = 0.03). At 2 years following the initial surgery, 21% of claimants had undergone revision spine surgery; 68% reported ongoing back pain and 41% had ongoing radicular symptoms. The difference between costs 1 year before and after surgery (excluding surgical costs) was statistically significant (p = 0.04). Fusions surgery was associated with higher total costs than decompression alone. After adjusting for surgery type, lumbar surgery was associated with higher costs in the 1 year after surgery and total surgical costs compared to cervical surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of claimants continued having clinical symptoms, continued using health care and did not return to work despite undertaking spine surgery.