Ayesha Tariq, Bhani Chawla-Kondal, Elliott Smith, Emily D Dubina, Nicholas W Sheets, David Plurad
{"title":"Impact of Trauma Verification Level on Management and Outcomes of Combined Traumatic Brain and Solid Organ Injuries: An NTDB Retrospective Review.","authors":"Ayesha Tariq, Bhani Chawla-Kondal, Elliott Smith, Emily D Dubina, Nicholas W Sheets, David Plurad","doi":"10.1177/00031348241257472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Level-I and level-II trauma centers are required to offer equivalent resources since \"The Orange Book.\" This study evaluates differences between level-I and level-II management of solid organ injury (SOI) with traumatic brain injury (TBI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Banks from 2013 to 2021 of adult (≥18 years), blunt trauma patients with both TBI and SOI treated at level-I or level-II trauma centers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>48,479 TBI and SOI patients were identified, 32,611 (67.3%) at level-I centers. Unadjusted incidence of laparotomy was higher at level I (14.5% vs 11.7%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and angiography rates were similar (3.3% vs 3.4%, <i>P</i> 0.717). Sub-group analysis of stable patients (SBP ≥100) showed an increase in nonoperative management at level II (87.3% vs 88.7%, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and decrease in laparotomy (9.9% vs 8.3%, <i>P</i> < 0.001). On logistic regression (LR), severe TBI, high-grade SOI, and level I trauma status were predictors of laparotomy. Logistic regression showed mild/moderate TBI with high-grade SOI and level II were associated with use of angiography. Unadjusted mortality rates were slightly different (14.8% vs 13.4%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), but there was no association with trauma level on LR.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Nonoperative management was seen more at level-II centers with laparotomy at level I. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in mortality in trauma levels. Matched patients for level I and II showed no statistical difference in management. Patients were treated similarly at both levels with similar outcomes and mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"2868-2875"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241257472","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Level-I and level-II trauma centers are required to offer equivalent resources since "The Orange Book." This study evaluates differences between level-I and level-II management of solid organ injury (SOI) with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Banks from 2013 to 2021 of adult (≥18 years), blunt trauma patients with both TBI and SOI treated at level-I or level-II trauma centers.
Results: 48,479 TBI and SOI patients were identified, 32,611 (67.3%) at level-I centers. Unadjusted incidence of laparotomy was higher at level I (14.5% vs 11.7%, P < 0.001), and angiography rates were similar (3.3% vs 3.4%, P 0.717). Sub-group analysis of stable patients (SBP ≥100) showed an increase in nonoperative management at level II (87.3% vs 88.7%, P < 0.001) and decrease in laparotomy (9.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.001). On logistic regression (LR), severe TBI, high-grade SOI, and level I trauma status were predictors of laparotomy. Logistic regression showed mild/moderate TBI with high-grade SOI and level II were associated with use of angiography. Unadjusted mortality rates were slightly different (14.8% vs 13.4%, P < 0.001), but there was no association with trauma level on LR.
Discussion: Nonoperative management was seen more at level-II centers with laparotomy at level I. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in mortality in trauma levels. Matched patients for level I and II showed no statistical difference in management. Patients were treated similarly at both levels with similar outcomes and mortality.
背景:自 "橙皮书 "发布以来,I级和II级创伤中心必须提供同等的资源。本研究评估了一级和二级创伤中心在处理伴有创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的实体器官损伤(SOI)方面的差异:我们对 2013 年至 2021 年期间在一级或二级创伤中心接受治疗的成年(≥18 岁)、同时伴有 TBI 和 SOI 的钝性创伤患者的国家创伤数据库进行了回顾性审查:结果:48,479 名 TBI 和 SOI 患者被确认,其中 32,611 人(67.3%)在一级中心接受治疗。一级中心未经调整的开腹手术发生率更高(14.5% vs 11.7%,P < 0.001),血管造影术发生率相似(3.3% vs 3.4%,P 0.717)。对病情稳定的患者(SBP ≥100)进行的亚组分析显示,二级非手术治疗率上升(87.3% vs 88.7%,P < 0.001),开腹手术率下降(9.9% vs 8.3%,P < 0.001)。在逻辑回归(LR)中,严重创伤性脑损伤、高级别 SOI 和一级创伤状态是开腹手术的预测因素。逻辑回归结果显示,轻度/中度创伤性脑损伤、高度SOI和二级创伤与血管造影术的使用有关。未经调整的死亡率略有不同(14.8% vs 13.4%,P < 0.001),但与LR的创伤程度无关:子组分析显示,不同创伤级别的死亡率没有差异。I 级和 II 级匹配患者的处理方法没有统计学差异。两级中心对患者的治疗方法相似,结果和死亡率也相似。
期刊介绍:
The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.