Search

Purpose: The effectiveness of open cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCPR) remains controversial for trauma patients. In this current study, the role of OCPR in managing chest trauma patients is evaluated using nationwide real-world data. Methods: From 2014 to 2015, the National Trauma Data Bank was retrospectively queried for chest trauma patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest status. The emergency department (ED) and overall survival of patients without signs of life were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed to evaluate independent factors of mortality for the target group. Furthermore, a subset group of patients who survived after the ED were studied, focusing on the duration of survival after leaving the ED. Results: A total of 911 patients were enrolled in this study (OCPR vs. non-OCPR: 161 patients vs. 750 patients). The average overall mortality rate was 98.6% (N = 898). Among penetrating chest trauma patients, non-survivors in the ED had significantly higher proportions of gunshot injuries (83.9% vs. 69.7%, p = 0.001) and lower proportions of OCPR (20.7% vs. 44.4%, p < 0.001). MLR analysis showed that gunshot injuries and non-OCPR were significantly related to ED mortality in penetrating trauma patients without signs of life (odds ratio = 2.039, p = 0.006 and odds ratio = 2.900, p < 0.001, respectively). However, the overall survival rate of patients after ED survival (n = 99) was 9.9%, and only 21.2% (n = 21) of them survived more than 1 day after leaving the ED. Conclusion: OCPR could be considered in situations where appropriate indications exist. The survival benefit was observed in critically ill patients with penetrating chest trauma who show no signs of life. By enhancing ED survival, OCPR may also contribute to overall survival improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Open pelvic fractures are rare but complex injuries. Concomitant external and internal hemorrhage and wound infection-related sepsis result in a high mortality rate and treatment challenges. Here, we validated the World Society Emergency Society (WSES) classification system for pelvic injuries in open pelvic fractures, which are quite different from closed fractures, using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). Methods: Open pelvic fracture patients in the NTDB 2015 dataset were retrospectively queried. The mortality rates associated with WSES minor, moderate and severe injuries were compared. A multivariate logistic regression model (MLR) was used to evaluate independent factors of mortality. Patients with and without sepsis were compared. The performance of the WSES classification in the prediction of mortality was evaluated by determining the discrimination and calibration. Results: A total of 830 open pelvic fracture patients were studied. The mortality rates of the mild, moderate and severe WSES classes were 3.5%, 11.2% and 23.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). The MLR analysis showed that the presence of sepsis was an independent factor of mortality (odds of mortality 9.740, p < 0.001). Compared with patients without sepsis, those with sepsis had significantly higher mortality rates in all WSES classes (minor: 40.0% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001; moderate: 50.0% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001; severe: 66.7% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed an acceptable discrimination of the WSES classification alone for evaluating the mortality of open pelvic fracture patients [area under curve (AUC) = 0.717]. Improved discrimination with an increased AUC was observed using the WSES classification plus sepsis (AUC = 0.767). Conclusions: The WSES guidelines can be applied to evaluate patients with open pelvic fracture with accurate evaluation of outcomes. The presence of sepsis is recommended as a supplement to the WSES classification for open pelvic fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The number and type of patients treated by trauma centers can vary widely because of a number of factors. There might be trauma centers with a high volume of torso GSWs that are not designated as high-level trauma centers. We proposed that, for torso gunshot wounds (GSWs), the treating hospital's trauma volume and not its trauma center level designation drives patient prognosis. Methods: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for torso GSWs. The characteristics of torso GSWs in trauma centers with different volumes of torso GSWs were compared. The association between torso GSW volumes of trauma centers and the outcomes of torso GSWs were evaluated with propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariate logistic regression (MLR) analysis. Results: There were 618 trauma centers that treated 14,804 torso GSW patients in two years (2014-2015). In 191 level I trauma centers, 82 of them (42.9%, 82/191) treated <1 torso GSW per month. After well-balanced PSM, patients who were treated in higher volume trauma centers (≥9 torso GSWs/month) had a significantly lower mortality rate (7.9% vs. 9.7%). Patients treated in trauma centers with ≥9 torso GSWs/month had a 30.9% (odds ratio = 0.764) lower probability of death than if sent to trauma centers with <9 torso GSWs/month. Treatment in level I or II trauma centers did not significantly affect mortality. Conclusion: There is an uneven distribution of torso GSWs among trauma centers. Torso GSWs treated in trauma centers with ≥9 torso GSWs/month have significantly superior outcomes with regard to survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]