Evaluation of Prehospital Undertriage in Relation to Trauma Team Activation-Results from a Prospective Study in 12 Level one German Trauma Centers.

Background/Objective: This prospective, multicenter observational cohort study was carried out in 12 trauma centers in Germany and Switzerland. Its purpose was to evaluate the rate of undertriage, as well as potential consequences, and relate these with different Trauma Team Activation Protocols (TTA-Protocols), as this has not been done before in Germany. Methods: Each trauma center collected the data during a three-month period between December 2019 and February 2021. All 12 participating hospitals are certified as supra-regional trauma centers. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of undertriaged patients. Those included in the study were all consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with acute trauma admitted to the emergency department of one of the participating hospitals by the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) within 6 h after trauma. The data contained information on age, sex, trauma mechanism, pre- and in-hospital physiology, emergency interventions, emergency surgical interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death within 48 h. Trauma team activation (TTA) was initiated by the emergency medical services. This should follow the national guidelines for severe trauma using established field triage criteria. We used various denominators, such as ISS, and criteria for the appropriateness of TTA to evaluate the undertriage in four groups. Results: This study included a total of 3754 patients. The average injury severity score was 5.1 points, and 7.0% of cases (n = 261) presented with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16+. TTA was initiated for a total of 974 (26%) patients. In group 1, we evaluated how successful the actual practice in the EMS was in identifying patients with ISS 16+. The undertriage rate was 15.3%, but mortality was lower in the undertriage cohort compared to those with a TTA (5% vs. 10%). In group 2, we evaluated the actual practice of EMS in terms of identifying patients meeting the appropriateness of TTA criteria; this showed a higher undertriage rate of 35.9%, but as seen in group 1, the mortality was lower (5.9% vs. 3.3%). In group 3, we showed that, if the EMS were to strictly follow guideline criteria, the rate of undertriage would be even higher (26.2%) regarding ISS 16+. Using the appropriateness of TTA criteria to define the gold standard for TTA (group 4), 764 cases (20.4%) fulfilled at least one condition for retrospective definition of TTA requirement. Conclusions: Regarding ISS 16+, the rate of undertriage in actual practice was 15.3%, but those patients did not have a higher mortality.

Performing Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) across Borders: Midterm Follow-Up of the Aeromedical Evacuation after Civilian Bus Accident at Madeira.

On 17 April 2019, a coach with tourists from Germany crashed in Madeira, requiring repatriation by the German Air Force. The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) concept was the central component of patient care. Data in Madeira were collected through a structured interview. The analysis of the Aeromedical Evacuation was based on intensive care transport records. In Germany, all available medical data sheets were reviewed for data collection. Quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated by the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Twenty-eight prehospital patients were transported to the Level III Trauma Center in Funchal (Madeira). Five operative procedures were performed. Fifteen patients were eligible for Aeromedical Evacuation (AE). In the second hospital phase in Germany, in total 82 radiological images and 9 operations were performed. Hospital stay lasted 11 days (median, IQR 10-18). Median follow-up (14 of 15 patients) was 16 months (IQR 16-21). Eighty percent (8 out of 10) showed an increased risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Six key findings were identified in this study: divergent injury classification, impact of AE mission on health status, lack of communication, need of PTSD prophylaxis, patient identification, and media coverage. Those findings may improve AE missions in the future, e.g., when required after armed conflicts.

[Care of the severely injured in mass casualty incidents : What is the difference compared to emergency room management?] / Schwerstverletztenversorgung beim Massenanfall von Verletzten : Worin besteht der Unterschied zum Schockraummanagement?

The management of a severely injured patient according to the standards and principles of individualized trauma care is a well-established procedure in many hospitals. The process is structured and standardized by the content of several course formats. In contrast, a mass casualty incident (MCI, MANV) is a rare and exceptional situation. In this case the treatment priorities and approaches are changed. The main aim in this situation is to ensure the best possible chance of survival for every casualty by organizational measures to mobilize rooms, personnel and material and to temporarily abandon the standards of individualized trauma care. To be prepared for a MCl situation it is necessary to know the realistic scenarios, to update the hospital emergency plan and to adapt all treatment procedures to the transient lack of resources. This article gives an overview of this process and summarizes the current clinical concepts to cope with a MCl situation and the current principles for the care of the severely injured involving many casualties.

Education and training as a key enabler of successful patient care in mass-casualty terrorist incidents.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The increase in terrorist attacks with sometimes devastating numbers of victims has become a reality in Europe and has led to a fundamental change in thinking and a reorientation in many fields including health policy. The purpose of this original work was to improve the preparedness of hospitals and to provide recommendations for training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective literature search based on the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) for the period 2000 to 2017. Using defined search strategies, we were able to identify 203 articles. We grouped relevant findings into main categories with 47 statements and recommendations on education and training. In addition, we included data from a prospective questionnaire-based survey on this topic that we conducted at the 3rd Emergency Conference of the German Trauma Society (DGU) in 2019. RESULTS: Our systematic review identified recurrent statements and recommendations. A key recommendation was that regular training should take place on scenarios that should be as realistic as possible and should include all hospital staff. Military expertise and competence in the management of gunshot and blast injuries should be integrated. In addition, medical leaders from German hospitals considered current surgical education and training to be insufficient for preparing junior surgeons to manage patients who have sustained severe injuries by terrorist events. CONCLUSION: A number of recommendations and lessons learned on education and training were repeatedly identified. They should be included in hospital preparations for mass-casualty terrorist incidents. There appear to be deficits in current surgical training which may be offset by establishing courses and exercises.

Evaluation of the decision-making process within the table-top exercise of the Terror and Disaster Surgical Care (TDSC®) course.

PURPOSE: The threat of terror is omnipresent in Europe and the number of attacks worldwide is increasing. The target of attacks in Europe is usually the civilian population. Incalculable dangerous situations at the scene of the event and severe injury patterns such as complex gunshot and explosion injuries with a high number of highly life-threatening people present rescue forces, emergency physicians and subsequently hospitals with medical, organizational as well as tactical and strategic challenges. The Terror and Disaster Surgical Care (TDSC®) course trains clinical decision-makers to meet these challenges of a TerrorMASCAL in the first 24-48 h. METHODS: A table-top exercise was developed for the TDSC® course as a decision training tool, which was prospectively evaluated in six courses. The evaluation took place in 3 courses of the version 1.0, in 3 courses in the further developed version 2.0 to different target values like, e.g., the accuracy of the in-hospital triage. Furthermore, 16 TDSC® course instructors were evaluated. RESULTS: For the evaluation, n = 360 patient charts for version 1.0 and n = 369 for version 2.0 could be evaluated. Overall, the table-top exercise was found to be suitable for training of internal clinical decision makers. Version 2.0 was also able to depict the action and decision-making paths in a stable and valid manner compared to the previous version 1.0. The evaluation of the instructors also confirmed the further value and improvement of version 2.0. CONCLUSION: With this prospective study, the table-top exercise of the TDSC® course was tested for decision stability and consistency of the participants' decision paths. This could be proven for the selected target variables, it further showed an improvement of the training situation. A further development of the table-top exercise, in particular also using digital modules, will allow a further optimization. http://www.bundeswehrkrankenhaus-ulm.de.

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.

Traumatic tracheobronchial injuries: incidence and outcome of 136.389 patients derived from the DGU traumaregister.

To describe the incidence, therapy and outcome of traumatic tracheobronchial injuries (TTBI) in trauma patients with multiple injuries derived from the DGU TraumaRegister. We analyzed the data on all patients listed on the TraumaRegister DGU (TR-DGU) in Germany between 2002 and 2015 aged 16 years or older and with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of ≥ 9. We analyzed the data on 136,389 trauma patients, 561 of whom had suffered tracheobronchial injuries (0.4%). The majority were male (73.4%) and had a mean age of 43.7 years. In total, 84.0% of all TTBI injuries occurred secondary to blunt trauma, caused mainly by accidents (71.2%). TTBI was accompanied by several concomitant thoracic injuries such as pneumo- (41.2%) and hemothorax (23.2%), lacerations (7.8%) and contusions (32.3%) of the lung, as well as multiple rib fractures (29.6%). The severity of injury was classified via the abbreviated injury scale (AIS): 39.3% with AIS = 3, 51.3% with AIS = 4 and 60% with AIS = 5 patients underwent surgical interventions. The mortality of patients with tracheobronchial injuries was higher: 24.6%, versus 13.7% in all patients (control group). This high percentage reflects their generally severe injury burden through concomitant injuries. The incidence of TTBI in this large cohort of trauma patients is very low. However, its high mortality rate emphasizes its importance. Mortality was associated with higher ISS and AIS scores. Higher rates of concomitant injuries were therefore associated with a higher mortality rate. TTBI injuries revealed a higher rate of progression to surgical management, with 35% undergoing surgery within the first 24 h. This excessive mortality rate demonstrates a high overall injury burden in patients with TTBI and high mortality of associated injuries. A surgical intervention's impact on mortality cannot be assessed in this study, as it would need to be investigated in a case-matched study.

Terror and disaster surgical care: training experienced trauma surgeons in decision making for a MASCAL situation with a tabletop simulation game.

BACKGROUND: Mass-casualty incidents, especially in connection with a terrorist attack, can quickly overwhelm the capacities of receiving hospitals. After a mass-casualty terrorist incident, patients often arrive at hospitals in an uncoordinated manner on account of the chaotic situation. Many patients leave the incident site and refer themselves to hospitals independently. Hospital decision makers must, therefore, be able to make quick decisions on diagnostic procedures and treatment for every individual patient and, at the same time, take into consideration available resources. They require decision criteria and aids to properly manage such scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of the preparation of the Terror and Disaster Surgical Care (TDSC®) course, we developed a tabletop simulation game based on a comprehensive and structured review of the literature, the opinions of renowned experts, and the results of specialised conferences. This tabletop simulation game is played four times during each TDSC® course. RESULTS: Our analysis involved 264 of 465 course-participants from 2017 to 2019 and showed that the overall evaluation was very good and that participants grew more positive about the tabletop simulation game during the course. The tabletop simulation game received an average rating of 1.53 (1 = very good, 6 = insufficient). This rating remained consistently high over 19 courses. DISCUSSION: Hospital decision makers must respond to mass-casualty terrorist situations in a defined tactical and strategic approach. Rapid decisions must be made that take into account the special situation and available capacities and resources to maximise the number of survivors even though individual patients may have a poorer functional outcome. As part of the TDSC® course, the tabletop simulation game teaches high-level decision-making algorithms and prepares key hospital personnel for such situations.

Specificities of terrorist attacks: organisation of the in-hospital patient-flow and treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: Mass-casualty incidents are always a particular challenge not only for healthcare providers and other emergency service responders at the scene but also for receiving hospitals. Terrorism-related mass-casualty incidents can result in a wide variety of different scenarios so that hospitals and their personnel must prepare for far more complex and demanding requirements. PURPOSE: In this article, we describe and discuss in-hospital aspects of mass-casualty terrorist incidents and focus on the special medical and in particular surgical care that is required in this setting. METHODS: The overview presented here is based on the Terror and Disaster Surgical Care (TDSC®) course. The TDSC® course was mainly developed from a comprehensive and structured analysis of the literature, single expert opinions, and expert consensus conferences. The objective of this course is to train clinical decision-makers in how to manage major incidents. RESULTS: The management of a mass-casualty terrorist incident and the care of victims present multiple and unique challenges to hospitals. This applies in particular to the number and distribution of patients arriving at the hospital, injury patterns, infrastructural aspects, and personnel resources. Particular attention must be given to the surgical approach to caring for these patients, e.g., early total care, damage control surgery, or tactical abbreviated surgical care. CONCLUSION: Mass-casualty terrorist incidents are different from other mass-casualty events in many respects that require special attention. The provision of appropriate public services requires in particular that the preparation and training of personnel as well as the organisation of the in-hospital response be tailored to the incident.

[Surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : Recommendations on operative procedures]. / Chirurgie in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie : Empfehlungen zum operativen Vorgehen.

BACKGROUND: In February 2020 Germany was also hit by the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic. Even patients infected by SARS-CoV­2 or COVID-19 may need operative procedures. Currently, no uniform recommendations exist on precautions to be taken when operating on these patients. Furthermore, they may differ from one hospital to another. METHODS: The task force COVID-19 of the emergency, intensive and severely injured section of the German Trauma Society (DGU e. V.) has developed consensus-based recommendations on surgical treatment of patients with SARS-CoV­2 infections. Great importance is placed on the implementation in hospitals at all levels of care. RESULTS: The indications for surgical interventions in patients with COVID-19 infections require an extremely critical evaluation. When indicated these surgical intervention should ideally be performed in a separate operating theater. All personnel involved should wear personal protective equipment with FFP2 masks, face shields and double gloves. The emergency team in the resuscitation bay should generally wear the same personal protective equipment. Special training is mandatory and the exposure of team members should be minimized. CONCLUSION: The recommendations are principally used for all kinds of surgery and comply with the currently available knowledge. Nevertheless, all recommendations represent a compromise between maximum safety of all medical staff and practicability in the routine hospital workflow.

Why do some trauma patients die while others survive? A matched-pair analysis based on data from Trauma Register DGU®.

PURPOSE: The mortality rate for severely injured patients with the injury severity score (ISS) ≥16 has decreased in Germany. There is robust evidence that mortality is influenced not only by the acute trauma itself but also by physical health, age and sex. The aim of this study was to identify other possible influences on the mortality of severely injured patients. METHODS: In a matched-pair analysis of data from Trauma Register DGU®, non-surviving patients from Germany between 2009 and 2014 with an ISS≥16 were compared with surviving matching partners. Matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, physical health, injury pattern, trauma mechanism, conscious state at the scene of the accident based on the Glasgow coma scale, and the presence of shock on arrival at the emergency room. RESULTS: We matched two homogeneous groups, each of which consisted of 657 patients (535 male, average age 37 years). There was no significant difference in the vital parameters at the scene of the accident, the length of the pre-hospital phase, the type of transport (ground or air), pre-hospital fluid management and amounts, ISS, initial care level, the length of the emergency room stay, the care received at night or from on-call personnel during the weekend, the use of abdominal sonographic imaging, the type of X-ray imaging used, and the percentage of patients who developed sepsis. We found a significant difference in the new injury severity score, the frequency of multi-organ failure, hemoglobine at admission, base excess and international normalized ratio in the emergency room, the type of accident (fall or road traffic accident), the pre-hospital intubation rate, reanimation, in-hospital fluid management, the frequency of transfusion, tomography (whole-body computed tomography), and the necessity of emergency intervention. CONCLUSION: Previously postulated factors such as the level of care and the length of the emergency room stay did not appear to have a significant influence in this study. Further studies should be conducted to analyse the identified factors with a view to optimising the treatment of severely injured patients. Our study shows that there are significant factors that can predict or influence the mortality of severely injured patients.

Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

BACKGROUND: The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator. RESULTS: By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS <14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO2) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.

Correction to: Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained some mistakes.

Impact of body mass index on outcomes after thoracic trauma-A matched-triplet analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

INTRODUCTION: Chest trauma and obesity are both associated with increased risks for respiratory complications (e.g. hypoxia, hypercarbia, pneumonia), which are frequent causes of posttraumatic morbidity and mortality. However, as there is only limited and inconsistent evidence, the aim of our study was to analyse the effect of body mass index (BMI) on patient outcomes after thoracic trauma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We screened 50.519 patients entered in TraumaRegister DGU®, between 2004-2009, when the BMI was part of the standardized dataset. After matching for injury patterns and severity of trauma we performed a matched tripled analysis with regard to the BMI (group 1: <25.0 kg/m2; group 2: 25.0-29.9 kg/m2; group 3: >30.0 kg/m2). Data are shown as percentages and mean values with standard deviation. RESULTS: The matching process yielded a cohort of 828 patients with serious blunt thoracic trauma, evenly distributed over the 3 BMI groups (276 triplets). BMI did not have an impact on the need for prehospital or emergency department interventions. There was a trend towards more liberal use of whole-body-CT scanning with increasing BMI (group 1: 68.8%; group 2: 73.2%; group 3: 75.0%). Additional abdominal injuries were more common in normal weight patients (Group 1: 28.3%; Group 2: 14.9%; Group 3: 17.8%). Obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m2) had a significant impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (in days; group 1: 6.5 (9.4); group 2: 6.4 (8.9); group 3: 9.1 (14.4); p = 0.002), ICU days (in days; group 1: 11.5 (11.5); group 2: 10.9 (9.6); group 3: 14.1 (16.7); p = 0.005) and hospital length of stay (in days; group 1: 27.8 (19.3); group 2: 27.4 (19.2); group 3: 32.2 (25.9); p = 0.009). There were no significant differences regarding overall mortality (group 1: 3.6%; group 2: 1.8%; group 3: 4.0%; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity has a negative impact on outcomes after blunt chest trauma, as it is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay. Mortality did not seem to be affected, yet, further research is required to confirm these results in a larger cohort.

Change of initial and ICU treatment over time in trauma patients. An analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have been standardized for pre- and in-hospital trauma management in the last decades. Therefore, it is known that prehospital management has changed significantly. Furthermore, in-hospital course may be altered to reduce complications and length of stay (LOS). However, the development of trauma patient in-hospital management as well as LOS in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been investigated systematically over a long-term period in Germany. Aim of our study is to examine the changes in in-hospital management and LOS in the ICU in moderately and severely injured patients. METHODS: Patients documented in the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society from 2000 to 2011 and admitted to ICU were included in this study. Demographic data, the pattern of injury, injury severity, duration of mechanical ventilation, LOS in the ICU, hospital LOS, and discharge destination were evaluated. The mean values and the standard deviations are shown. The constant variables were calculated with changes over time analyzed by linear regression analysis, and categorical variables were calculated with the chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 18,048 patients were analyzed. The rate of patients being intubated at the time of ICU admission decreased from 86.8 % in 2000 to 60.0 % in 2011 (p < 0.001). The time of mechanical ventilation decreased from 7.5 ± 10.5 to 4.7 ± 8.7 days. The intensive care unit LOS was reduced from 11.7 ± 12.8 to 9.0 ± 11.3 days and the length of hospital stay from 27.9 ± 28.7 to 21.1 ± 20.4 days (both p < 0.01). The ICU LOS remained stable in the subgroup of mechanically ventilated patients (12.7 ± 13.2 day in 2000, 12,6 ± 12.9 in 2011, p = 0.6), whereas it was reduced in non-mechanically ventilated patients (5.5 ± 6.8 days in 2000, 3.6 ± 4.5 days in 2011; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The reduction LOS in the analyzed dataset is mainly explained by the relevantly reduced rate of patients being intubated at the time of ICU admission. Our data demonstrate that trauma patients' in-hospital course is influenced by reduced intubation rate at the time of ICU admission.

Injury pattern, outcome and characteristics of severely injured pedestrian.

BACKGROUND: Pedestrians who are involved in motor vehicle collisions present with a unique trauma situation. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the specific clinical characteristics of this patient population in comparison to injured motor vehicle occupants in the medical emergency setting. METHODS: A total of 4435 pedestrian traffic collision victims admitted to hospitals participating at TraumaRegister DGU® between 2002 and 2012 (primary admission, Injury Severity Score, ISS ≥ 9; age ≥ 2 years) was assessed and compared to 16,042 severely injured motor vehicle occupants. Analyses included features such as demographic distribution, injury patterns, treatment course, subsequent complications and overall clinical outcome. RESULTS: Severely injured pedestrians more commonly were female (42 % vs. 34 % of motor vehicle occupants) and children below 16 years (12 % vs. 2 %) or seniors above 60 years of age (39 % vs. 17 %). Pedestrians were injured more severely (ISS: 26 vs. 25; NISS 32 vs. 30) with higher rates of head injuries (64 % vs. 47 %), pelvic injuries (32 % vs. 23 %) and lower extremity injuries (52 % vs. 43 %). Accordingly, pedestrians more commonly presented with Glasgow Coma Scale <9 (36 % vs. 28 %) and a systolic blood pressure below 90 mmHg (18 % vs. 13 %) accumulating in a worse prognosis (RISC-Score 24 % vs. 15 %) despite of a shorter on-scene treatment time (26 min vs. 38 min) and a shorter period from the collision until hospital admission (61 min vs. 78 min). Finally, pedestrians showed a higher mortality (22 % vs. 12 %). CONCLUSION: Severely injured pedestrians represent a challenging patient population with unique injury patterns and high subsequent mortality. Emergency team members should be sensitized to the trigger term "pedestrian" in order to improve the initial emergency management and thus the overall clinical outcome.

Level of Evidence Analysis for the Latest German National Guideline on Treatment of Patients with Severe and Multiple Injuries and ATLS.

PURPOSE: Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) is one of the world's best-known training programs for medical providers. Revisions of the ATLS manual have been evidence based for a number of years. In 2011, a level 3 (S3) evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of patients with severe and multiple injuries was published in Germany. The scope of this study was the systematic comparison of the educational content of the ATLS concept and the interdisciplinary "S3 polytrauma guideline." METHODS: A total of 123 key recommendations of the guideline were compared with the content of the ATLS manual (9th edition). Depending on the level of agreement, the recommendations were classed in the following categories: (1) Agreement. (2) Minor variation. (3) Major variation. RESULTS: An overall 86% conformity was found between the key recommendations of the guideline and the ATLS® manual. The ATLS® primary survey (ABCDE) showed an 85% conformity. The degree of conformity for the individual priorities was as follows: A (Airway) 79%, B (Breathing) 79%, C (Circulation) 86%, D (Disability) 93%, E (Exposure) 100%. The ATLS® secondary survey showed a 94% conformity. The main differences were in the areas of anesthetic induction, fluid administration, and coagulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: According to our comparison, the educational content and manual of the ATLS are largely compatible with a high level of evidence S3 guideline. However, subsequent editions of both the ATLS® and the S3 guideline should re-examine and reassess a number of aspects.

Is the ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock appreciated in daily trauma care? An online-survey among 383 ATLS course directors and instructors.

OBJECTIVE: For the early recognition and management of hypovolaemic shock, ATLS suggests four shock classes based upon an estimated blood loss in percent. The aim of this study was to assess the confidence and acceptance of the ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock among ATLS course directors and instructors in daily trauma care. METHODS: During a 2-month period, ATLS course directors and instructors from the ATLS region XV (Europe) were invited to participate in an online survey comprising 15 questions. RESULTS: A total of 383 responses were received. Ninety-eight percent declared that they would follow the 'A, B, C, D, E' approach by ATLS in daily trauma care. However, only 48% assessed 'C-Circulation' according to the ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock. One out of four respondents estimated that in daily clinical routine, less than 50% of all trauma patients can be classified according to the current ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock. Additionally, only 10.9% considered the ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock as a 'good guide' for fluid resuscitation and blood product transfusion, whereas 45.1% stated that this classification only 'may help' or has 'no impact' to guide resuscitation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 'A, B, C, D, E' approach according to ATLS is widely implemented in daily trauma care, the use of the ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock in daily practice is limited. Together with previous analyses, this study supports the need for a critical reassessment of the current ATLS classification of hypovolaemic shock.