Severe isolated injuries have a high impact on resource use and mortality: a Dutch nationwide observational study.

PURPOSE: The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with the presence of physiological risk factors (PRFs). Severe isolated injuries (SII) are excluded from the BPD. This study describes the characteristics, resource use and outcomes of patients with SII according to their injured body region, and compares them with those included in the BPD. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Dutch National Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2019. SII patients were defined as those with an injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 4 in one body region, with at most minor additional injuries (AIS ≤ 2). We performed an SII subgroup analysis per AIS region of injury. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for SII subgroup patient outcomes, and resource needs. RESULTS: A total of 10.344 SII patients were included; 47.8% were ICU admitted, and the overall mortality was 19.5%. The adjusted risk of death was highest for external (2.5, CI 1.9-3.2) and for head SII (2.0, CI 1.7-2.2). Patients with SII to the abdomen (2.3, CI 1.9-2.8) and thorax (1.8, CI 1.6-2.0) had a significantly higher risk of ICU admission. The highest adjusted risk of disability was recorded for spine injuries (10.3, CI 8.3-12.8). The presence of ≥ 1 PRFs was associated with higher mortality rates compared to their poly-trauma counterparts, displaying rates of at least 15% for thoracic, 17% for spine, 22% for head and 49% for external SII. CONCLUSION: A severe isolated injury is a high-risk entity and should be recognized and treated as such. The addition of PRFs to the isolated anatomical injury criteria contributes to the identification of patients with SII at risk of worse outcomes.

The Detrimental Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Major Trauma Outcomes in the Netherlands: A Comprehensive Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcome of major trauma patients in the Netherlands. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major trauma patients highly rely on immediate access to specialized services, including ICUs, shortages caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may influence their outcome. METHODS: A multi-center observational cohort study, based on the Dutch National Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcome of major trauma patients (injury severity score ≥16) treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first COVID-19 peak (March 23 through May 10) were compared with those treated from the same period in 2018 and 2019 (reference period). RESULTS: During the peak period, 520 major trauma patients were admitted, versus 570 on average in the pre-COVID-19 years. Significantly fewer patients were admitted to ICU facilities during the peak than during the reference period (49.6% vs 55.8%; P=0.016). Patients with less severe traumatic brain injuries in particular were less often admitted to the ICU during the peak (40.5% vs 52.5%; P=0.005). Moreover, this subgroup showed an increased mortality compared to the reference period (13.5% vs 7.7%; P=0.044). These results were confirmed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. In addition, a significant increase in observed versus predicted mortality was recorded for patients who had a priori predicted mortality of 50% to 75% (P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 peak had an adverse effect on trauma care as major trauma patients were less often admitted to ICU and specifically those with minor through moderate brain injury had higher mortality rates.

The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. METHODS: All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008-2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. RESULTS: The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63-74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. CONCLUSION: Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.

Dutch trauma system performance: Are injured patients treated at the right place?

BACKGROUND: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS: Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC. RESULTS: Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% - 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements.

Evaluation of the Berlin polytrauma definition: A Dutch nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of ≥3 in ≥2 body regions (2AIS ≥3) combined with the presence of ≥1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODS: The evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS ≥3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of ≥16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS ≥3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of ≥16. RESULTS: The DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of ≥16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS ≥3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS ≥3 and ISS ≥16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS ≥16 and 2AIS ≥3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.

Flushing of an intravenous catheter: a cause for unreliable laboratory results.

INTRODUCTION: Phlebotomy is an error-prone process in which mistakes are difficult to reveal. This case report describes the effect on laboratory results originating from a blood sample collected in close proximity to an intravenous catheter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 69-year-old male patient was referred to the Emergency department where pneumonia was suspected. Phlebotomy was performed to collect blood samples to assess electrolytes, renal function, liver function, infection and haematological parameters. RESULTS: The laboratory analysis showed reduced potassium and calcium concentrations. To prevent life-threatening cardiac failure the clinician decided to correct those electrolytes. Remarkably, the electrocardiogram showed no abnormalities corresponding to hypokalaemia and hypocalcaemia. This observation, in combination with an overall increase in laboratory parameters with the exception of sodium and chloride, led to the suspicion of a preanalytical error. Retrospectively, an intravenous catheter was inserted in close proximity of the puncture place but no continuous infusion was started prior to phlebotomy. However, the intravenous catheter was flushed with sodium chloride. Since potential other causes were excluded, the flushing of the intravenous catheter with sodium chloride prior to phlebotomy was the most probable cause for the deviating laboratory results and subsequently for the unnecessary potassium and calcium suppletion. CONCLUSION: This case underlines the importance of caution in the interpretation of laboratory results obtained from specimens that are collected in the proximity of an intravenous catheter, even in the absence of continuous infusion.

Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal radius are common and account for an estimated 17% of all fractures diagnosed. Two-thirds of these fractures are displaced and require reduction. Although distal radius fractures, especially extra-articular fractures, are considered to be relatively harmless, inadequate treatment may result in impaired function of the wrist. Initial treatment according to Dutch guidelines consists of closed reduction and plaster immobilisation. If fracture redisplacement occurs, surgical treatment is recommended. Recently, the use of volar locking plates has become more popular. The aim of this study is to compare the functional outcome following surgical reduction and fixation with a volar locking plate with the functional outcome following closed reduction and plaster immobilisation in patients with displaced extra-articular distal radius fractures. DESIGN: This single blinded randomised controlled trial will randomise between open reduction and internal fixation with a volar locking plate (intervention group) and closed reduction followed by plaster immobilisation (control group). The study population will consist of all consecutive adult patients who are diagnosed with a displaced extra-articular distal radius fracture, which has been adequately reduced at the Emergency Department. The primary outcome (functional outcome) will be assessed by means of the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand Score (DASH). Secondary outcomes comprise the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), quality of life, pain, range of motion, radiological parameters, complications and cross-overs. Since the treatment allocated involves a surgical procedure, randomisation status will not be blinded. However, the researcher assessing the outcome at one year will be unaware of the treatment allocation. In total, 90 patients will be included and this trial will require an estimated time of two years to complete and will be conducted in the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam and its partners of the regional trauma care network. DICUSSION: Ideally, patients would be randomised before any kind of treatment has been commenced. However, we deem it not patient-friendly to approach possible participants before adequate reduction has been obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3113) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre on 01-10-2012.

HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER): a multicenter comparative observational study.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery. METHODS/DESIGN: The design of the study will be a multicenter prospective observational study of 400 patients who have sustained a humeral shaft fracture, AO type 12A or 12B. Treatment decision (i.e., operative or non-operative) will be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Critical elements of treatment will be registered and outcome will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcome measures are the Constant score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow and shoulder joint at both sides, radiographic healing, rate of complications and (secondary) interventions, health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), time to resumption of ADL/work, and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses (including mixed effects regression analysis). The cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of patients with a humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3617).