Search

Background: A key component of trauma system evaluation is the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The ISS is dependent on the AIS, and as AIS versions are updated this effects the number of patients within a health system which are considered severely injured (ISS >15). This study aims to analyse the changes comparing AIS1998 and AIS2015, and its impact on injury severity scoring and survival prediction model in a major trauma centre., Methods: This retrospective study reviewed all blunt trauma admissions from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 from the trauma registry of Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong. Patients were manually double coded with AIS1998 and AIS2015 by the same experienced trauma nurse who have completed both AIS 1998 and AIS 2015 Courses. AIS patterns and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) derived from AIS 1998 and 2015 were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The area under the receiving operator curve (AUROC) was compared based on the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) model using AIS 1998 and AIS 2015., Results: 739 patients were included. There were 34 deaths within 30 days (30-day mortality rate 4.6%). Patients coded with AIS2015 compared with AIS1998 had significant reductions in the classification of serious, severe and critical categories of AIS, with a substantial increase in the mild and moderate categories. The largest reduction was observed in the head and neck region (Z = -11.018, p < 0.001), followed by the chest (Z = -6.110, p < 0.001), abdomen (Z = -4.221, p < 0.001) and extremity regions (Z = -4.252, p < 0.001). There was a 27% reduction in number of cases with ISS >15 in AIS2015 compared with AIS1998. Rates of 30-day mortality, ICU admission, emergency operation and trauma team activation of ISS > 15 using AIS 1998 were similar to the cut off for New Injury Severity Score (NISS) >12 using AIS 2015. The AUROC from the TRISS (AIS2015) was 0.942, and not different from the AUROC for TRISS (AIS1998) of 0.936. The sensitivity and specificity were 93.9% and 82.1% for TRISS (AIS2015), and 93.9% and 76.0% for TRISS (AIS1998)., Conclusion: Trauma centres should be aware of the impact of the AIS2015 update on the benchmarking of trauma care, and consider the need for updating the ISS cut off for major trauma definitions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Hong Kong (HK) trauma registries have been using the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) for audit and benchmarking since their introduction in 2000. We compare the mortality prediction model using TRISS and Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II (RISC II) for trauma centre patients in HK., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study with all five trauma centres in HK. Adult trauma patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 suffering from blunt injuries from January 2013 to December 2015 were included. TRISS models using the US and local coefficients were compared with the RISC II model. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for tested models., Results: 1840 patients were included, of whom 1236/1840 (67%) were male. Median age was 59 years and median ISS was 25. Low falls were the most common mechanism of injury. The 30-day mortality was 23%. RISC II yielded a superior AUC of 0.896, compared with the TRISS models (MTOS: 0.848; PATOS: 0.839; HK: 0.858). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed that all the models performed worse for age ≥ 70, ASA ≥ III, and low falls. RISC II had a higher AUC compared with the TRISS models in all subgroups, although not statistically significant., Conclusion: RISC II was superior to TRISS in predicting the 30-day mortality for Hong Kong adult blunt major trauma patients. RISC II may be useful when performing future audit or benchmarking exercises for trauma in Hong Kong., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been enormously disruptive and harmful to people around the world, but its impact on other illnesses and injuries has been more variable. To evaluate the ramification of infectious disease outbreaks on major traumatic injuries, we compared changes in the incidence of major trauma cases during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) period with COVID-19 in 2020., Methods: Data were analyzed from the trauma registry of a major, tertiary-care teaching hospital in Hong Kong. Patients presenting with major traumatic injuries during the first six months of 2001-03 and 2018-20 were retrieved for analysis. Patient characteristics, injury mechanism, admitting service, and emergency department (ED)/hospital lengths of stay (LOS) were recorded. Raw and adjusted survival rates (using the modified Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS)) were recorded., Results: The number of trauma cases fell dramatically during 2003 and 2020 compared with previous years. In both 2003 and 2020, the number of trauma registry patients fell by 49% in April (compared to the preceding reference years of 2001/02 and 2018/19, respectively). Patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were also different during the outbreak years. Comparing 2003 to 2020 relative to their respective reference baselines, the percentages of injuries that happened at home, patients without co-morbidities, and patients' mean age all increased in 2003 but decreased in 2020. Work-place injuries drastically dropped in 2003, but not in 2020. Average ED LOS dropped in 2003 by 36.4 min (95% CI 12.5, 60.3) but declined by only 14.5 min (95% CI -2.9, 32.1) in 2020. Both observed and expected 30-day mortality declined in 2020 vs. 2003 (observed 4.5% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.001, OR 0.352, 95% CI 0.187, 0.661) (expected 4.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.002, OR 0.358, 95% CI 0.188, 0.684)., Conclusion: Major trauma cases dropped by half during both the peak of the 2003 SARS and 2020 COVID-19 pandemics in Hong Kong, suggesting a trend for future pandemic planning. If similar findings are seen at other trauma centers, proactive personnel and resource allocations away from trauma towards medical emergency systems may be more appropriate for future pandemics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Background: There is limited evidence to guide the recognition of patients with massive, uncontrolled hemorrhage who require initiation of a massive transfusion (MT) protocol. Objective: To risk stratify patients with major trauma and to predict need for MT. Designs: Retrospective analysis of an administrative trauma database of major trauma patients. A regional trauma Centre: A regional trauma centres in Hong Kong. Patients: Patients with Injury Severity Score ≥9 and age ≥12 years were included. Burn patients, patients with known severe anemia and renal failure, or died within 24h were excluded. Main outcome measures: Delivery of ≥10 units of packed red blood cells (RBC) within 24h. Results: Between 01/01/2001 and 30/06/2009, 1891 patients met the inclusion criteria. 92 patients required ≥10 units RBC within 24h. Seven variables which were easy to be measured in the ED and significantly predicted the need for MT are heart rate ≥120/min; systolic blood pressure ≤90mmHg; Glasgow coma scale ≤8; displaced pelvic fracture; CT scan or FAST positive for fluid; base deficit >5mmol/L; hemoglobin ≤7g/dL; and hemoglobin 7.1–10g/dL. At a cut off of ≥6, the overall correct classification for predicting need for MT was 96.9%, with a sensitivity of 31.5% and specificity of 99.7%, and an incidence of MT of 82.9%. The area under the curve was 0.889. Conclusion: A prediction rule for determining an increased likelihood for the need for massive transfusion has been derived. This needs validation in an independent data set. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]