...
首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >A Re-Evaluation of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on the Early Risk of Death in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients
【24h】

A Re-Evaluation of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on the Early Risk of Death in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients

机译:重新评估创伤中心验证水平对血流动力学不稳定患者早期死亡风险的影响

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Studies show increased early and overall mortality at level II compared to level I trauma centers in hemodynamically unstable patients. We hypothesize there is no mortality difference between level I and level II centers applying more contemporary data. Study design Utilizing the 2017 Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File (TQP-PUF), we identified adult patients (age 14 years) who presented to an American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified level I or II center with hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] 90 mmHg). Logistic regression was performed to identify adjusted associations with mortality. Results A total of 7,264 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom most were males (4,924 [67.8%]) with blunt trauma (5,924 [81.6%]) being predominated. Mean admission SBP was 73.2 (±13.0) mmHg. There were 1,097 (15.1%) deaths. Level I admissions (4,931 (67.9%]) were more likely male (3,389 [68.7%] vs. 1,535 [65.8]; p=0.012), non-white (3,119 [63.3%] vs. 1,664 [71.3%]; p0.001), a victim of penetrating trauma (933 [18.9%] vs. 385 [16.5%]; p=0.015), and more severely injured (mean Injury Severity Score: 19.3 [±15] vs. 16.7 [±13.7]; p0.001). Level II admissions (2,333 [32.1%]) were older (46.8 [±18.5] vs. 50.3 [±20.1] years; p0.001) with more co-morbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.43 [±2] vs. 1.77 [±2.2]; p0.001). Adjusted mortality between level I and II admissions was similar (766 [15.5%] vs. 331 [14.2%]; p=0.918). Early hourly mortality also did not differ. Conclusion There is no overall or hourly mortality discrepancy between ACS-verified level I and II centers for patients presenting with hypotension. This potentially relates to the use of more contemporary data gathered after implementation of updated verification requirements.
机译:背景技术与血流动力学不稳定患者的I级创伤中心相比,II的早期和总体死亡率提高和整体死亡率增加。我们假设I级和II级中心之间没有死亡率差异,适用更多的当代数据。研究设计利用2017年创伤质量方案参与者使用文件(TQP-PUF),我们确定了成年患者(年龄& 14年),他向美国外科医院(ACS)验证了II或II中心的验证了(收缩血液)压力[SBP]& 90 mmHg)。进行逻辑回归以确定具有死亡率的调整后的关联。结果共有7,264名患者达到纳入标准,其中大多数是男性(4,924 [67.8%]),突然创伤(5,924 [81.6%])占主导地位。平均入院SBP为73.2(±13.0)mmHg。有1,097(15.1%)死亡。级别录取(4,931(67.9%])雄性更容易(3,389 [68.7%] Vs.1,535 [65.8]; p = 0.012),非白色(3,119 [63.3%] Vs.1,664 [71.3%]; p&lt ; 0.001),穿透创伤的受害者(933 [18.9%],385 [16.5%]; p = 0.015),更严重受伤(平均损伤严重程度:19.3 [±15]与16.7 [±13.7] ; P <0.001)。II款入院(2,333 [32.1%])较旧(46.8 [±18.5]与50.3 [±20.1]岁; P <0.001),具有更多的共同性状(平均Charlson合并指数:1.43 [ ±2]与1.77 [±2.2]; p <0.001)。I和II级别之间的调整后的死亡率相似(766 [15.5%]与331 [14.2%]; p = 0.918)。早期的死亡率也是如此没有差异。结论患有低血压患者的ACS验证的I和II中心之间没有总体或每小时死亡率差异。这可能涉及在实施更新的验证要求后收集的更多当代数据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号