Identifying the severely injured benefitting from a specific level of trauma care in an inclusive network: A multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Defining major trauma (MT) with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 has limitations. This threshold is used for concentrating MT care in networks with multiple levels of trauma care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify subgroups of severely injured patients benefiting on in-hospital mortality and non-fatal clinical outcome measures in an optimal level of trauma care. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective cohort study on data of the Dutch National Trauma Registry, region South West, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patients ≥ 16 years admitted within 48 h after trauma transported with (H)EMS to a level I trauma centre (TC) or a non-level I trauma facility with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≥ 3 were included. Patients with burns or patients of ≥ 65 years with an isolated hip fracture were excluded. Logistic regression models were used for comparing level I with non-level I. Subgroup analysis were done for MT patients (ISS > 15) and non-MT patients (ISS 9-14). RESULTS: A total of 7,493 records were included. In-hospital mortality of patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility did not differ significantly from patients admitted to the level I TC (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-1.30). This was also applicable for MT patients (OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.73-1.53) and non-MT patients (OR: 1.30; 95% CI (0.56-3.03). Hospital and ICU LOS were significantly shorter for patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facilities, and patients admitted to a non-level I trauma facility were more likely to be discharged home. Findings were confirmed for MT and non-MT patients, per injured body region. CONCLUSION: All levels of trauma care performed equally on in-hospital mortality among severely injured patients (MAIS ≥ 3), although patients admitted to the level I TC were more severely injured. Subgroups of patients by body region or ISS, with a survival benefit or more favorable clinical outcome measures were not identified. Subgroups analysis on clinical outcome measures across different levels of trauma care in an inclusive trauma network is too simplistic if subgroups are based on injuries in specific body region or ISS only.

Trauma models to identify major trauma and mortality in the prehospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major trauma might benefit from treatment in a trauma centre, but early identification of major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) over 15) remains difficult. The aim of this study was to undertake an external validation of existing prognostic models for injured patients to assess their ability to predict mortality and major trauma in the prehospital setting. METHODS: Prognostic models were identified through a systematic literature search up to October 2017. Injured patients transported by Emergency Medical Services to an English hospital from the Trauma Audit and Research Network between 2013 and 2016 were included. Outcome measures were major trauma (ISS over 15) and in-hospital mortality. The performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (concordance index, C-statistic) and net benefit to assess the clinical usefulness. RESULTS: A total of 154 476 patients were included to validate six previously proposed prediction models. Discriminative ability ranged from a C-statistic value of 0·602 (95 per cent c.i. 0·596 to 0·608) for the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Arterial Pressure model to 0·793 (0·789 to 0·797) for the modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (mREMS) in predicting in-hospital mortality (11 882 patients). Major trauma was identified in 52 818 patients, with discrimination from a C-statistic value of 0·589 (0·586 to 0·592) for mREMS to 0·735 (0·733 to 0·737) for the Kampala Trauma Score in predicting major trauma. None of the prediction models met acceptable undertriage and overtriage rates. CONCLUSION: Currently available prehospital trauma models perform reasonably in predicting in-hospital mortality, but are inadequate in identifying patients with major trauma. Future research should focus on which patients would benefit from treatment in a major trauma centre.

ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con traumatismo mayor pueden beneficiarse del tratamiento en un centro de trauma, pero la identificación precoz del traumatismo mayor (Injury Severity Score, ISS > 15) sigue siendo difícil. El objetivo de este estudio fue validar externamente los modelos pronósticos existentes para los pacientes con traumatismos con el fin de evaluar su capacidad para predecir el traumatismo mayor y la mortalidad en el entorno pre-hospitalario. MÉTODOS: Los modelos pronóstico se identificaron mediante una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura hasta octubre de 2017. Los pacientes incluidos fueron pacientes con traumatismos que fueron trasladados mediante los servicios de emergencia médica (emergency medical services, EMS) a un hospital inglés perteneciente a Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) entre 2013 y 2016. Las variables evaluadas fueron los traumatismos graves (ISS > 15) y la mortalidad hospitalaria. El rendimiento de los modelos se analizó en términos de discriminación (índice de concordancia, c) y de beneficio neto para evaluar la utilidad clínica. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 154.476 pacientes para validar los seis modelos de predicción propuestos previamente. La capacidad discriminatoria osciló entre c = 0,602 (i.c. del 95%: 0,596-0,608) para el modelo que incluye mecanismo, escala de coma de Glasgow, edad y presión arterial (MGAP) hasta c = 0,793 (0,789-0,797) para la puntuación de medicina de emergencia rápida modificada (mREMS) en la predicción de la mortalidad hospitalaria (n = 11.882). Se identificó un traumatismo mayor en 52.818 pacientes, con una discriminación de c = 0,589 (0,586-0,592) para mREMS a c = 0,735 (0,733-0,737) para la puntuación de trauma de Kampala en la predicción de traumatismo mayor. Ninguno de los modelos de predicción cumplió con las tasas aceptables de subtriaje (undertriage) y sobretriaje (overtriage). CONCLUSIÓN: Los modelos de trauma pre-hospitalarios actualmente disponibles tienen un rendimiento razonable para predecir la mortalidad hospitalaria, pero son inadecuados para identificar a los pacientes con traumatismo mayor. En el futuro, las investigaciones deberían centrarse en identificar a los pacientes que se podrían beneficiar del tratamiento en un centro de trauma especializado.

Variation in the practice of tracheal intubation in Europe after traumatic brain injury: a prospective cohort study.

Traumatic brain injury patients frequently undergo tracheal intubation. We aimed to assess current intubation practice in Europe and identify variation in practice. We analysed data from patients with traumatic brain injury included in the prospective cohort study collaborative European neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) in 45 centres in 16 European countries. We included patients who were transported to hospital by emergency medical services. We used mixed-effects multinomial regression to quantify the effects on pre-hospital or in-hospital tracheal intubation of the following: patient characteristics; injury characteristics; centre; and trauma system characteristics. A total of 3843 patients were included. Of these, 1322 (34%) had their tracheas intubated; 839 (22%) pre-hospital and 483 (13%) in-hospital. The fit of the model with only patient characteristics predicting intubation was good (Nagelkerke R2 64%). The probability of tracheal intubation increased with the following: younger age; lower pre-hospital or emergency department GCS; higher abbreviated injury scale scores (head and neck, thorax and chest, face or abdomen abbreviated injury score); and one or more unreactive pupils. The adjusted median odds ratio for intubation between two randomly chosen centres was 3.1 (95%CI 2.1-4.3) for pre-hospital intubation, and 2.7 (95%CI 1.9-3.5) for in-hospital intubation. Furthermore, the presence of an anaesthetist was independently associated with more pre-hospital intubation (OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.3-6.6), in contrast to the presence of ambulance personnel who are allowed to intubate (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8). In conclusion, patient and injury characteristics are key drivers of tracheal intubation. Between-centre differences were also substantial. Further studies are needed to improve the evidence base supporting recommendations for tracheal intubation.