Comparative Effectiveness of Initial Treatment at Trauma Center vs Neurosurgery-Capable Non-Trauma Center for Severe, Isolated Head Injury.

Head injury is an increasing contributor to death and disability, particularly among the elderly. Older patients are less likely to be treated at trauma centers, and head injury is the most common severe injury treated at non-trauma centers. We hypothesized that patients initially triaged to trauma centers would have lower rates of mortality and higher rates of discharge home without services than those treated at non-trauma centers. We used the State Emergency Department and Inpatient Databases (2011 to 2012) for 6 states to conduct a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe, isolated head injury. Combined, these databases capture all visits to non-federal emergency departments. We compared in-hospital mortality and discharge status for all adults and for the subgroup aged 65 years or older who initially presented to either a trauma center or a neurosurgery-capable non-trauma center. To account for selection bias, we used differential distance from patients' homes to a trauma center as an instrumental variable and performed a multivariable matched analysis. Of 62,198 patients who presented with severe, isolated head injury, 44.2% presented to non-trauma centers and 55.8% to trauma centers. In multivariable matched instrumental variable analysis, initial presentation to a trauma center was associated with no significant difference in overall mortality (-1.06%; 95% CI -3.36% to 1.19%), but a 5.8% higher rate of discharge home (95% CI 1.7% to 10.0%). Among patients aged 65 years or older, initial presentation to a trauma center was associated with a 3.4% reduction in mortality (95% CI 0.0% to 7.1%). Patients with isolated, severe head injury have better outcomes if initially treated in designated trauma centers. As 40% of such patients were triaged to non-trauma centers, there are major opportunities for improving outcomes.

Kaufman EJ ，Ertefaie A ，Small DS ，Holena DN ，Delgado MK ... -  《-》

The Epidemiology of Emergency Department Trauma Discharges in the United States.

Injury-related morbidity and mortality is an important emergency medicine and public health challenge in the United States. Here we describe the epidemiology of traumatic injury presenting to U.S. emergency departments (EDs), define changes in types and causes of injury among the elderly and the young, characterize the role of trauma centers and teaching hospitals in providing emergency trauma care, and estimate the overall economic burden of treating such injuries. We conducted a secondary retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study of the Nationwide Emergency Department Data Sample (NEDS), the largest all-payer ED survey database in the United States. Main outcomes and measures were survey-adjusted counts, proportions, means, and rates with associated standard errors (SEs) and 95% confidence intervals. We plotted annual age-stratified ED discharge rates for traumatic injury and present tables of proportions of common injuries and external causes. We modeled the association of Level I or II trauma center care with injury fatality using a multivariable survey-adjusted logistic regression analysis that controlled for age, sex, injury severity, comorbid diagnoses, and teaching hospital status. There were 181,194,431 (SE = 4,234) traumatic injury discharges from U.S. EDs between 2006 and 2012. There was a mean year-to-year decrease of 143 (95% CI = -184.3 to -68.5) visits per 100,000 U.S. population during the study period. The all-age, all-cause case-fatality rate for traumatic injuries across U.S. EDs during the study period was 0.17% (SE = 0.001%). The case-fatality rate for the most severely injured averaged 4.8% (SE = 0.001%), and severely injured patients were nearly four times as likely to be seen in Level I or II trauma centers (relative risk = 3.9 [95% CI = 3.7 to 4.1]). The unadjusted risk ratio, based on group counts, for the association of Level I or II trauma centers with mortality was risk ratio = 4.9 (95% CI = 4.5 to 5.3); however, after sex, age, injury severity, and comorbidities were accounted for, Level I or II trauma centers were not associated with an increased risk of fatality (odds ratio = 0.96 [95% CI = 0.79 to 1.18]). There were notable changes at the extremes of age in types and causes of ED discharges for traumatic injury between 2009 and 2012. Age-stratified rates of diagnoses of traumatic brain injury increased 29.5% (SE = 2.6%) for adults older than 85 and increased 44.9% (SE = 1.3%) for children younger than 18. Firearm-related injuries increased 31.7% (SE = 0.2%) in children 5 years and younger. The total inflation-adjusted cost of ED injury care in the United States between 2006 and 2012 was $99.75 billion (SE = $0.03 billion). Emergency departments are a sensitive barometer of the continuing impact of traumatic injury as an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Level I or II trauma centers remain a bulwark against the tide of severe trauma in the United States, but the types and causes of traumatic injury in the United States are changing in consequential ways, particularly at the extremes of age, with traumatic brain injuries and firearm-related trauma presenting increased challenges.

DiMaggio CJ ，Avraham JB ，Lee DC ，Frangos SG ，Wall SP ... -  《-》

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury transferred to a Level I or II trauma center: United States, 2007 to 2009.

Sugerman DE ，Xu L ，Pearson WS ，Faul M ... -  《-》

Survival benefit of transfer to tertiary trauma centers for major trauma patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers.

Recent evidence suggests a measurable reduction in mortality for patients transferred from a nontertiary trauma center (Level III or IV) to a Level I trauma center, but not for those transferred to a Level II trauma center. Whether this can be generalized to a predominantly rural region with fewer tertiary trauma care resources is uncertain. This study sought to evaluate mortality differences for patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers in a predominantly rural region depending on transfer status. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients initially presenting to 104 nontertiary trauma centers in Oklahoma and meeting the state's criteria for major trauma. Patients dying within 1 hour of emergency department (ED) arrival at the nontertiary trauma center were excluded. The exposure variable of interest was admission status, which was categorized as either transfer to a tertiary (Level I or II) trauma center within 24 hours or admission to a nontertiary trauma center. Propensity scores were used to minimize the selection bias inherent in the decision to admit or transfer a patient for higher-level care. Multiple logistic regression was used to generate three propensity score models: probability of transfer to either a Level I or II, Level I only, and Level II only. Propensity scores were then included as a covariate in multivariable Cox regression models assessing outcome differences between admitted and transferred patients. The outcome of interest was 30-day mortality, defined as death at either the nontertiary trauma center or the tertiary trauma center within 30 days of arrival at the initial Level III/IV center's ED. A total of 6,229 patients met study criteria, of whom 2,669 (43%) were transferred to tertiary trauma centers. Of those transferred, 1,422 patients (53%) were transferred to a Level I trauma center. Crude mortality was lower for patients transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining at nontertiary trauma facilities (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48 to 0.72). After adjusting for the propensity to be transferred, Injury Severity Score (ISS), presence of severe head injury, and age, transfer to a tertiary trauma center was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (HR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.50) compared to admission and treatment at a nontertiary trauma center. The observed survival benefit was similar for patients transferred to a Level I trauma center (HR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.4) and those transferred to a Level II center (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.61). This study suggests a survival benefit among patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers who are subsequently transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining in nontertiary trauma centers, even after adjusting for variables affecting the likelihood of transfer. Although this survival benefit was larger for patients treated at a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma centers in a region with few tertiary trauma resources demonstrated a measurable benefit as well.

Garwe T ，Cowan LD ，Neas B ，Cathey T ，Danford BC ，Greenawalt P ... -  《-》

Undertriage of Trauma-Related Deaths in U.S. Emergency Departments.

Holst JA ，Perman SM ，Capp R ，Haukoos JS ，Ginde AA ... -  《-》