Search

Background: The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) Injury Severity Score (ICISS) is a risk adjustment model when injuries are recorded using ICD-9-CM coding. The trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM-ICD9) provides better calibration and discrimination compared with ICISS and injury severity score (ISS). Though TMPM-ICD9 is statistically rigorous, it is not precise enough mathematically and has the tendency to overestimate injury severity. The purpose of this study is to develop a new ICD-10-CM injury model which estimates injury severities for every injury in the ICD-10-CM lexicon by a combination of rigorous statistical probit models and mathematical properties and improves the prediction accuracy. Methods: We developed an injury mortality prediction (IMP-ICDX) using data of 794,098 patients admitted to 738 hospitals in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2015 to 2016. Empiric measures of severity for each of the trauma ICD-10-CM codes were estimated using a weighted median death probability (WMDP) measurement and then used as the basis for IMP-ICDX. ISS (version 2005) and the single worst injury (SWI) model were re-estimated. The performance of each of these models was compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC), the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion statistic. Results: IMP-ICDX exhibits significantly better discrimination (AUCIMP-ICDX, 0.893, and 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.887 to 0.898; AUCISS, 0.853, and 95% CI, 0.846 to 0.860; and AUCSWI, 0.886, and 95% CI, 0.881 to 0.892) and calibration (HLIMP-ICDX, 68, and 95% CI, 36 to 98; HLISS, 252, and 95% CI, 191 to 310; and HLSWI, 92, and 95% CI, 53 to 128) compared with ISS and SWI. All models were improved after the extension of age, gender, and injury mechanism, but the augmented IMP-ICDX still dominated ISS and SWI by every performance. Conclusions: The IMP-ICDX has a better discrimination and calibration compared to ISS. Therefore, we believe that IMP-ICDX could be a new viable trauma research assessment method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reverse shock index (rSI) multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (rSIG), calculated by multiplying the GCS score with systolic blood pressure (SBP)/hear rate (HR), was proposed to be a reliable triage tool for identifying risk of in-hospital mortality in trauma patients. This study was designed to externally validate the accuracy of the rSIG in the prediction of mortality in our cohort of trauma patients, in comparison with those that were predicted by the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), shock index (SI), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). Adult trauma patients aged ≥20 years who were admitted to the hospital from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2017, were included in this study. The rSIG, RTS, and SI were calculated according to the initial vital signs and GCS scores of patients upon arrival at the emergency department (ED). The end-point of primary outcome is in-hospital mortality. Discriminative power of each score to predict mortality was measured using area under the curve (AUC) by plotting the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for 18,750 adult trauma patients, comprising 2438 patients with isolated head injury (only head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 2) and 16,312 without head injury (head AIS ≤ 1). The predictive accuracy of rSIG was significantly lower than that of RTS in all trauma patients (AUC 0.83 vs. AUC 0.85, p = 0.02) and in patients with isolated head injury (AUC 0.82 vs. AUC 0.85, p = 0.02). For patients without head injury, no difference was observed in the predictive accuracy between rSIG and RTS (AUC 0.83 vs. AUC 0.83, p = 0.97). Based on the cutoff value of 14.0, the rSIG can predict the probability of dying in trauma patients without head injury with a sensitivity of 61.5% and specificity of 94.5%. The predictive accuracy of both rSIG and RTS is significantly poorer than that of TRISS, in all trauma patients (AUC 0.93) or in patients with (AUC 0.89) and without head injury (AUC 0.92). In addition, SI had the significantly worse predictive accuracy than all of the other three models in all trauma patients (AUC 0.57), and the patients with (AUC 0.53) or without (AUC 0.63) head injury. This study revealed that rSIG had a significantly higher predictive accuracy of mortality than SI in all of the studied population but a lower predictive accuracy of mortality than RTS in all adult trauma patients and in adult patients with isolated head injury. In addition, in the adult patients without head injury, rSIG had a similar performance as RTS to the predictive risk of mortality of the patients.

Introduction: The United States and the world are currently experiencing a tremendous growth in the elderly population. Moreover, individuals surpassing the ages of 80 and 90 are also continuing to increase. As this unique division of society expands, it is critical that the medical community best understands how to assess, diagnose, and treat this population. The purpose of this study was to analyze morbidity, mortality, and overall outcome of patients aged 90 years and older after orthopedic surgical fracture repair. Such knowledge will guide patients and their families in making decisions when surgery is required among nonagenarians., Methods: The trauma registry of our level I academic medical center was queried to identify potential study participants over the past decade. Two hundred and thirty-three surgical procedures among 227 patients were included and retrospectively assessed. Parameters of specific interest were injury type, mechanism of injury (including high energy vs low energy and height of falls), injury severity score, preoperative comorbidities, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, discharge destination, and postoperative mortality rate., Results: Overall, 4.3% of the cohort died in the hospital following surgery. Of the patients who survived, 89.7% were discharged to a professionally supervised setting. The nonagenarian population displayed a considerable follow-up rate, as 82.8% of individuals returned for their first postoperative office visit., Discussion: Historically, surgical morbidity and mortality are highly associated with this age group. However, the number of nonagenarians in the United States is increasing, as are these surgical procedures. The epidemiologic and clinical findings of our study support this trend and add further insight into the matter., Conclusion: This investigation demonstrates that orthopedic surgery is an appropriate treatment in this population with an acceptable complication rate. Furthermore, nonagenarians have the potential to demonstrate a substantial follow-up rate, but postoperative discharge to a professionally supervised setting may be necessary., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Polytrauma patients are expected to have a higher risk of mortality than that obtained by the summation of expected mortality owing to their individual injuries. This study was designed to investigate the outcome of patients with polytrauma, which was defined using the new Berlin definition, as cases with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3 for two or more different body regions and one or more additional variables from five physiologic parameters (hypotension [systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg], unconsciousness [Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 8], acidosis [base excess ≤ -6.0], coagulopathy [partial thromboplastin time ≥ 40 s or international normalized ratio ≥ 1.4], and age [≥70 years]). Methods: We retrieved detailed data on 369 polytrauma patients and 1260 non-polytrauma patients with an overall Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 18 who were hospitalized between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015 for the treatment of all traumatic injuries, from the Trauma Registry System at a level I trauma center. Patients with burn injury or incomplete registered data were excluded. Categorical data were compared with two-sided Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests. The unpaired Student t -test and the Mann-Whitney U -test was used to analyze normally distributed continuous data and non-normally distributed data, respectively. Propensity-score matched cohort in a 1:1 ratio was allocated using the NCSS software with logistic regression to evaluate the effect of polytrauma on patient outcomes. Results: The polytrauma patients had a significantly higher ISS than non-polytrauma patients (median (interquartile range Q1-Q3), 29 (22-36) vs. 24 (20-25), respectively; p < 0.001). Polytrauma patients had a 1.9-fold higher odds of mortality than non-polytrauma patients (95% CI 1.38-2.49; p < 0.001). Compared to non-polytrauma patients, polytrauma patients had a substantially longer hospital length of stay (LOS). In addition, a higher proportion of polytrauma patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), spent longer LOS in the ICU, and had significantly higher total medical expenses. Among 201 selected propensity score-matched pairs of polytrauma and non-polytrauma patients who showed no significant difference in sex, age, co-morbidity, AIS ≥ 3, and Injury Severity Score (ISS), the polytrauma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate (OR 17.5, 95% CI 4.21-72.76; p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of patients admitted to the ICU (84.1% vs. 74.1%, respectively; p = 0.013) with longer stays in the ICU (10.3 days vs. 7.5 days, respectively; p = 0.003). The total medical expenses for polytrauma patients were 35.1% higher than those of non-polytrauma patients. However, there was no significant difference in the LOS between polytrauma and non-polytrauma patients (21.1 days vs. 19.8 days, respectively; p = 0.399). Conclusions: The findings of this propensity-score matching study suggest that the new Berlin definition of polytrauma is feasible and applicable for trauma patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Background : A cross-sectional study to investigate the association of Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA) score with clinical presentation and expenditure of hospitalized adult trauma patients with femoral fractures. Methods : According to the data retrieved from the Trauma Registry System between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015, a total of 2086 patients aged ≥40 years and hospitalized for treatment of traumatic femoral bone fracture were categorized as high-risk patients (OSTA < -4, n = 814), medium-risk patients (-1 ≥ OSTA ≥ -4, n = 634), and low-risk patients (OSTA > -1, n = 638). Two-sided Pearson's, chi-squared, or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical data. Unpaired Student's t -test and Mann-Whitney U -test were used to analyze normally and non-normally distributed continuous data, respectively. Propensity-score matching in a 1:1 ratio was performed using Number Crunching Statistical Software (NCSS) software (NCSS 10; NCSS Statistical Software, Kaysville, UT, USA), with adjusted covariates including mechanism and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); injuries were assessed based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS) was used to evaluate the effect of OSTA-related grouping on a patient's outcome. Results : High-risk and medium-risk patients were predominantly female, presented with significantly older age and higher incidences of co-morbidity, and were injured in a fall accident more frequently than low-risk patients. High-risk patients and medium-risk patients had a different pattern of femoral fracture and a significantly lower ISS. Although high-risk and medium-risk patients had significantly shorter lengths hospital of stay (LOS) and less total expenditure than low-risk patients did, similar results were not found in the selected propensity score-matched patients, implying that the difference may be attributed to the associated injury severity of the patients with femoral fracture. However, the charge of surgery is significantly lower in high-risk and medium-risk patients than in low-risk patients, regardless of the total population or the selected propensity score-matched patients. This lower charge of surgery may be attributed to a less aggressive surgery applied for older patients with high or medium risk of osteoporosis. Conclusions : This study of hospitalized trauma patients with femoral fracture according to OSTA risk classification revealed that high-risk and medium-risk patients had significantly higher odds of sustaining injury in a fall accident than low-risk patients; they also present a different pattern of femoral bone fracture as well as a significantly lower ISS, shorter hospital LOS, and less total expenditure. In addition, the significantly lower charge of surgery in high-risk and medium-risk patients than in low-risk patients may be because of the preference of orthopedists for less aggressive surgery in dealing with older patients with osteoporotic femoral bone fracture., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: The ratio of systolic blood pressure (SBP) to heart rate (HR), called the reverse shock index (RSI), is used to evaluate the hemodynamic stability of trauma patients. A SBP lower than the HR (RSI < 1) indicates the probability of hemodynamic shock. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the RSI as evaluated by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel at the injury scene (EMS RSI) and the physician in the emergency department (ED RSI) could be used as an additional variable to identify patients who are at high risk of more severe injury., Methods: Data obtained from all 16,548 patients added to the trauma registry system at a Level I trauma center between January 2009 and December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients transferred by EMS were included in this study. A total of 3715 trauma patients were enrolled and subsequently divided into four groups: group I patients had an EMS RSI ≥1 and an ED RSI ≥1 (n = 3485); group II an EMS RSI ≥ 1 and an ED RSI < 1 (n = 85); group III an EMS RSI < 1 and an ED RSI ≥ 1 (n = 98); and group IV an EMS RSI < 1 and a ED RSI < 1 (n = 47). A Pearson's χ² test, Fisher's exact test, or independent Student's t-test was conducted to compare trauma patients in groups II, III, and IV with those in group I., Results: Group II and IV patients had a higher injury severity score, a higher incidence of commonly associated injuries, and underwent more procedures (including intubation, chest tube insertion, and blood transfusion in the ED) than patients in group I. Group II and IV patients were also more likely to receive a severe injury to the thoracoabdominal area. These patients also had worse outcomes regarding the length of stay in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), the proportion of patients admitted to ICU, and in-hospital mortality. Group II patients had a higher adjusted odds ratio for mortality (5.8-times greater) than group I patients., Conclusions: Using an RSI < 1 as a threshold to evaluate the hemodynamic condition of the patients at the injury scene and upon arrival to the ED provides valid information regarding deteriorating outcomes for certain subgroups of patients in the ED setting. Particular attention and additional resources should be provided to patients with an EMS RSI ≥ 1 that deteriorates to an RSI < 1 upon arrival to the ED since a higher odds of mortality was found in these patients.

Introduction Multiple injured patients, polytrauma or severely injured patients are terms used as synonyms in international literature describing injured patients with a high risk of mortality and cost consuming therapeutic demands. In order to advance the definition of these terms, we analysed a large trauma registry. In detail, we compared critically ill trauma patients first specified on a pure anatomical base according to the ISS or NISS, second in the original “polytrauma definition” with two body regions affected and finally all of them combined with a physiological component. Patients and methods Records that were collected in the TraumaRegister DGU ® of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) between 1993 and 2011 (92,479 patients) were considered for this study. All patients with primary admission from scene with a minimum hospital stay of 48 h and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 were included. Pre-hospital and early admission data were used to determine physiological risk factors and calculate individual risk of death using the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC). Results 45,350 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall hospital mortality rate was 20.4%. The predicted mortality according to the RISC-Score was 21.6%. 36,897 patients (81.4%) had injuries in several body regions. The prevalence of the five physiological risk factors varied between 17% (high age) and 34% (unconsciousness). There were 17,617 patients (38.8%) without any risk factor present on admission, while 30.6% ( n = 13,890) of the patients had one and 30.5% ( n = 13,843) had two or more factors present. Patients with ISS ≥ 16 but no physiological risk factor present had a very low mortality rate of 3.1% (542 of 17,617). With an increasing number of physiological factors there was an almost linear increase in mortality up to an 86% rate in patients with all five factors present. The ‘polytrauma’ definition of Butcher and colleagues with AIS ≥ 3 in at least two different body regions would apply to only 56.2% of patients in the present group with ISS ≥ 16. The mortality in this subgroup is only marginally higher (21.8%; 5559 of 25,494) than in the group of patients with only one severely affected body region (18.5%; 3675 of 19,875). Conclusions In our opinion the principle of sharpening an anatomically based definition by a defined physiological problem will help to specify the really critically ill trauma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Frailty Index has been shown to predict discharge disposition in geriatric patients. The aim of this study was to validate the modified 15-variable Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI) to predict discharge disposition in geriatric trauma patients. We hypothesized that TSFI can predict discharge disposition in geriatric trauma patients. Study Design: We performed a 2-year (2011–2013) prospective analysis of all geriatric trauma patients presenting to our Level I trauma center. Patient discharge disposition was dichotomized into unfavorable (discharge to skilled nursing facility or death) and favorable (discharge to home or rehabilitation center) discharge disposition. Patients were evaluated using the developed 15-variable TSFI. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors that predict unfavorable discharge disposition. Results: A total of 200 patients were enrolled for validation of TSFI. Mean age was 77 ± 12.1 years, median Injury Severity Score was 15 (interquartile range [IQR] 9 to 20), median Glasgow Coma Scale score was 14 (IQR 13 to 15), and median Frailty Index score was 0.20 (IQR 0.17 to 0.28); 29.5% (n = 59) patients had unfavorable discharge. After adjusting for age, sex, Injury Severity Score, Head Abbreviated Injury Scale, and vitals on admission, Frailty Index (odds ratio = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5) was the only significant predictor for unfavorable discharge disposition. Age (odds ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–3.1; p = 0.2) was not predictive of unfavorable discharge disposition. Conclusions: The 15-variable TSFI is an independent predictor of unfavorable discharge disposition in geriatric trauma patients. The Trauma-Specific Frailty Index is an effective tool that can aid clinicians in planning discharge disposition of geriatric trauma patients. Level of Evidence: II Prognostic Studies−Investigating the Effect of a Patient Characteristic on the Outcome of Disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Japan Advanced Trauma Evaluation and Care (JATEC) education program was introduced in 2002. To examine its effect on the survival of trauma patients, we investigated changes in trauma mortality in Japan in the years after JATEC was introduced. Study Design: We included patients registered in the Japan Trauma Databank (JTDB) from 2004 to 2011 with clear in-hospital mortality and sufficient data to estimate the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS). Patients were grouped into the early (2004–2006), transition (2007–2008), and late (2009–2011) cohorts. We performed logistic regression analyses after adjusting for TRISS to estimate risk of death in the transition and late cohorts compared with the early cohort. Stratified logistic regression analyses showed which characteristics contributed to the changes in mortality. Results: Of 94,664 patients registered in the JTDB, 47,095 were selected. Adjusted mortality was significantly lower in the late cohort (odds ratio = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61–0.76) than in the early cohort (reference). Stratification analyses demonstrated significant interactions in patients with or without any chest or abdominal surgery (odds ratio = 0.83 vs 0.68; p < 0.001 in the late cohort) and in patients with TRISS probability of survival <0.5 or ≥0.5 (odds ratio = 0.71 vs 0.67 for TRISS probability of survival ≥0.5; p < 0.001 in the late cohort). Conclusions: Since 2007, mortality has decreased in patients with mild trauma injury; however, mortality was significantly worse for severely injured patients or patients requiring surgical procedures. These findings suggest that definitive trauma care in Japan should be strengthened. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Major injury is the sixth leading cause of death worldwide. Among those under 35 years of age, it is the leading cause of death and disability. Traffic accidents alone are the main cause, fundamentally in low- and middle-income countries. Patients over 65 years of age are an increasingly affected group. For similar levels of injury, these patients have twice the mortality rate of young individuals, due to the existence of important comorbidities and associated treatments, and are more likely to die of medical complications late during hospital admission. No worldwide, standardized definitions exist for documenting, reporting and comparing data on severely injured trauma patients. The most common trauma scores are the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the Trauma and Injury severity Score (TRISS). Documenting the burden of injury also requires evaluation of the impact of post-trauma impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Trauma epidemiology helps define health service and research priorities, contributes to identify disadvantaged groups, and also facilitates the elaboration of comparable measures for outcome predictions., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y SEMICYUC. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To determine the formula that predicts the injury severity score from parameters that are obtained in the emergency department at arrival., Methods: We reviewed the medical records of trauma patients who were transferred to the emergency department of Gunma University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2010. The injury severity score, age, mean blood pressure, heart rate, Glasgow coma scale, hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell count, platelet count, fibrinogen, international normalized ratio of prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and fibrin degradation products, were examined in those patients on arrival. To determine the formula that predicts the injury severity score, multiple linear regression analysis was carried out. The injury severity score was set as the dependent variable, and the other parameters were set as candidate objective variables. IBM spss Statistics 20 was used for the statistical analysis. Statistical significance was set at P  < 0.05. To select objective variables, the stepwise method was used., Results: A total of 122 patients were included in this study. The formula for predicting the injury severity score (ISS) was as follows: ISS = 13.252-0.078(mean blood pressure) + 0.12(fibrin degradation products). The P -value of this formula from analysis of variance was <0.001, and the multiple correlation coefficient (R) was 0.739 (R 2  = 0.546). The multiple correlation coefficient adjusted for the degrees of freedom was 0.538. The Durbin-Watson ratio was 2.200., Conclusions: A formula for predicting the injury severity score in trauma patients was developed with ordinary parameters such as fibrin degradation products and mean blood pressure. This formula is useful because we can predict the injury severity score easily in the emergency department.