Search

Background: Comprehensive analysis of trauma care between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high-volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting. Methods: Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post-operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality. Results: There were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status. Conclusion: Use and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is a lack of data-driven, risk-adjusted mortality estimates for injured children outside of high-income countries (HIC). To inform injury prevention and quality improvement efforts, an upper middle-income country (UMIC) pediatric trauma registry was compared to that of a HIC.Methods: Clinical data, injury details, and mortality of injured children (< 18 years) hospitalized in two centers (USA and South African (SA)) from 2013 to 2017 were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses evaluated risk of mortality and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Of 2089 patients, SA patients had prolonged transfer times (21.1 vs 3.4 h) and were more likely referred (78.2% vs 53.9%; both p < 0.001). Penetrating injuries were more frequent in SA (23.2% vs 7.4%, p < 0.001); injury severity (9 vs 4) and shock index (0.90 vs 0.80) were greater (both p < 0.001). SA utilized cross-sectional imaging more frequently (66.4% vs 37.3%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar (1.9% SA, 1.3% USA, p = 0.31). Upon multivariable analysis, ISS > 25 [210.50 (66.0-671.0)] and penetrating injury [5.5 (1.3-23.3)] were associated with mortality, while institution [1.7 (0.7-4.2)] was not.Conclusions: Despite transfer time, the centers demonstrated comparable survival rates. Comparison of registry data can alert clinicians to problematic practice patterns, assisting initiatives to improve trauma systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]