Search

Introduction: Delays in promptly recognizing and appropriately managing hemorrhagic injuries contribute to preventable trauma related deaths nationwide. We sought to identify patient variables available at the time of emergency department arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold., Methodology: We conducted a trauma registry review from September 2016 to March 2020 of trauma team activations at The Ottawa Hospital, a Level 1 Trauma Center. Our primary outcome was the frequency of meeting the critical administration threshold. Secondary outcomes included time to critical administration threshold, 24-h all-cause mortality, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors independently associated with meeting the critical administration threshold., Results: We assessed 762 patients, of which 78 (10.2%) met the critical administration threshold. The median time to critical administration threshold was 28.9 min. Mortality at 24 h occurred in 58 (7.6%) patients. Four variables available upon patient arrival predicted the critical administration threshold, including systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg (OR 6.6; 95% CI 3.7-12.0), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8 (OR 5.9; 95% CI 3.2-10.6), heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.4-8.1), and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.0)., Conclusion: We identified four clinical variables readily available to physicians upon patient arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold: systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8, heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute, and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min. Patients presenting with any of these clinical parameters should prompt physicians to consider ordering blood products immediately., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Purpose: Most North American trauma systems have designated trauma centres (TCs) including level I (ultraspecialized high-volume metropolitan centres), level II (specialized medium-volume urban centres), and/or level III (semirural or rural centres). Trauma system configuration varies across provinces and it is unclear how these differences influence patient distributions and outcomes. We aimed to compare patient case mix, case volumes, and risk-adjusted outcomes of adults with major trauma admitted to designated level I, II, and III TCs across Canadian trauma systems., Methods: In a national historical cohort study, we extracted data from Canadian provincial trauma registries on major trauma patients treated between 2013 and 2018 in all designated level I, II, or III TCs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia; level I and II TCs in New Brunswick; and four TCs in Ontario. We used multilevel generalized linear models to compare mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and competitive risk models for hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS). Ontario could not be included in outcome comparisons because there were no population-based data from this province., Results: The study sample comprised 50,959 patients. Patient distributions in level I and II TCs were similar across provinces but we observed significant differences in case mix and volumes for level III TCs. There was low variation in risk-adjusted mortality and LOS across provinces and TCs but interprovincial and intercentre variation in risk-adjusted ICU admission was high., Conclusions: Our results suggest that differences in the functional role of TCs according to their designation level across provinces leads to significant variations in the distribution of patients, case volumes, resource use, and clinical outcomes. These results highlight opportunities to improve Canadian trauma care and underline the need for standardized population-based injury data to support national quality improvement efforts., (© 2023. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)

Background: The goal of conservative management (CM) of penetrating abdominal trauma is to avoid nontherapeutic laparotomies while identifying injuries early. Factors that may predict CM failure are not well established, and the experience of CM has not been well described in the Canadian context., Methods: We searched a Canadian level 1 trauma centre database for all penetrating abdominal traumas treated between 2004 and 2014. Hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis and without clear indications for immediate surgery were considered potential candidates for CM, and were included in the study. We compared those who were managed with CM with those who underwent immediate operative management (OM). Outcomes included mortality and length of stay (LOS). Further analysis was performed to identify predictors of CM failure., Results: A total of 72 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma were classified as potential candidates for CM. Ten patients were managed with OM, and 62 with CM, with 9 (14.5%) ultimately failing CM and requiring laparotomy. The OM and CM groups were similar in terms of age, sex, injury severity, mechanism and number of injuries. There were no deaths in either group. The LOS in the intensive care (ICU)/trauma unit was 4.8 ± 3.2 days in the OM group and 2.9 ± 2.6 days in the CM group (p = 0.039). The only predictor for CM failure was intra-abdominal fluid on computed tomography (CT) scan (odds ratio 5.3, 95% confidence interval 1.01-28.19)., Conclusion: In select patients with penetrating abdominal trauma, CM is safe and results in a reduced LOS in the ICU/trauma unit of 1.9 days. Fluid on CT scan is a predictor for failure.