A Consensus-Based Criterion Standard for the Requirement of a Trauma Team.

BACKGROUND: Trauma team activation (TTA) represents a considerable expenditure of trauma centre resources. It is mainly triggered by field triage criteria. The overall quality of the criteria may be evaluated based on the rate of over- and undertriage. However, there is no gold standard that defines which adult patients truly require a trauma team. The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based criteria defining the necessity for a trauma team. METHODS: A consensus group was formed by trauma specialists experienced in emergency and trauma care with a specific interest in field triage and having previously participated in guideline development. A literature search was conducted to identify criteria that have already been used or suggested. The initial list of criteria was discussed in two Delphi round and two consensus conferences. The entire process of discussion and voting was highly standardized and extensively documented, resulting in a final list of criteria. RESULTS: Initially 95 criteria were identified. This was subsequently reduced to 20 final criteria to appropriately indicate the requirement for attendance of a trauma team. The criteria address aspects related to injury severity, admission to an intensive care unit, death within 24 h, need for specified invasive procedures, need for surgical and/or interventional radiological procedures, and abnormal vital signs within a defined time period. CONCLUSIONS: The selected criteria may be applied as a tool for research and quality control concerning TTA. However, future studies are necessary to further evaluate for possible redundancy in criteria that may allow for further reduction in criteria.

Evaluation of a standardized instrument for post hoc analysis of trauma-team-activation-criteria in 75,613 injured patients an analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the quality of criteria for trauma-team-activation it is necessary to identify patients who benefited from the treatment by a trauma team. Therefore, we evaluated a post hoc criteria catalogue for trauma-team-activation which was developed in a consensus process by an expert group and published recently. The objective was to examine whether the catalogue can identify patients that died after admission to the hospital and therefore can benefit from a specialized trauma team mostly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The catalogue was applied to the data of 75,613 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® between the 01/2007 and 12/2016 with a maximum abbreviated injury score (AIS) severity ≥ 2. The endpoint was hospital mortality, which was defined as death before discharge from acute care. RESULTS: The TraumaRegister DGU® dataset contains 18 of the 20 proposed criteria within the catalogue which identified 99.6% of the patients who were admitted to the trauma room following an accident and who died during their hospital stay. Moreover, our analysis showed that at least one criterion was fulfilled in 59,785 cases (79.1%). The average ISS in this group was 21.2 points (SD 9.9). None of the examined criteria applied to 15,828 cases (average ISS 8.6; SD 5). The number of consensus-based criteria correlated with the severity of injury and mortality. Of all deceased patients (8,451), only 31 (0.37%) could not be identified on the basis of the 18 examined criteria. Where only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was 1.7%; with 2 or more criteria, mortality was at least 4.6%. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based criteria identified nearly all patients who died as a result of their injuries. If only one criterion was fulfilled, mortality was relatively low. However, it increased to almost 5% if two criteria were fulfilled. Further studies are necessary to analyse and examine the relative weighting of the various criteria. Our instrument is capable to identify severely injured patients with increased in-hospital mortality and injury severity. However, a minimum of two criteria needs to be fulfilled. Based on these findings, we conclude that the criteria list is useful for post hoc analysis of the quality of field triage in patients with severe injury.

Is there any benefit in the pre-hospital application of pelvic binders in patients with suspected pelvic injuries?

BACKGROUND: Massive hemorrhage is a common cause of death in patients sustaining instable pelvic ring fractures. Pelvic binders have been propagated for rapid, non-invasive pelvic ring stabilization and control of severe pelvic hemorrhage. There is a recommendation to applicate a pelvic binder due to the trauma mechanism alone. However, there is little evidence to support this advice. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of an early pelvic binder application on transfusion requirements and hospital mortality. METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a study investigating clinical examination for pelvic stability. We included 64 patients who showed radiologically proven pelvic ring fracture (Tile type B or C). Study data were complemented by retrospective chart review to assess transfusion requirements. We used descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: 37 patients had a pelvic binder applied during prehospital treatment (pb), 27 received no binder (npb). Both showed no statistically significant difference in terms of injury severity or probability of survival. We found a trend towards higher ISS (29.7 vs. 24.4) and a lower probability of survival (RISC-II Prognosis 81% vs. 89%) in the pb group. Risk for massive transfusion according to TASH-Scores (10% vs. 6%), and average number of RPBC transfused (10.5 vs. 7.5) was higher in the pb group, without statistically significance. 20 patients (54%) in the pb group and 15 patients (55%) in the npb group showed a need of RPBC within the first 72 h. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (20% vs. 13.3%). CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify blood-saving effects with application of a pelvic binder to patients with instable pelvic ring fractures in terms of RPBC requirements. Nevertheless, some salutary effect of prehospital pb application may be assumed. Better studies are needed to elucidate the value of this intervention.

Emotional content does not interfere with verbal memory in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy.

In healthy humans, memory for words with emotional valence is better than memory for neutral words. At the same time, the word preceding the emotional word in a word list learning task is remembered less often than other neutral words. Both effects, enhanced memory for emotional words and retrograde amnesia for preceding words, are dependent on intactness of the amygdala. In this study we asked whether patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), a disease that often involves the amygdala as well, show altered memory for emotional words and the words presented in close temporal proximity. Whereas we found enhanced memory performance for emotional and decreased recognition performance for the preceding and successive word in our 19 control subjects, both effects were strongly reduced in our 21 patients. No group differences occurred in memory for perceptually deviant words. The lack of emotion effects on memory in the patients cannot simply be attributed to altered perception of emotions as the patients rated the emotionality of the words no different than control subjects. Hence, we conclude that patients with TLE have a specific deficit in the emotion-driven encoding enhancement mediated by the amygdala-hippocampus loop.