Intensive care for extreme prematurity--moving beyond gestational age.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding whether to administer intensive care to extremely premature infants are often based on gestational age alone. However, other factors also affect the prognosis for these patients. METHODS: We prospectively studied a cohort of 4446 infants born at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation (determined on the basis of the best obstetrical estimate) in the Neonatal Research Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to relate risk factors assessable at or before birth to the likelihood of survival, survival without profound neurodevelopmental impairment, and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment at a corrected age of 18 to 22 months. RESULTS: Among study infants, 3702 (83%) received intensive care in the form of mechanical ventilation. Among the 4192 study infants (94%) for whom outcomes were determined at 18 to 22 months, 49% died, 61% died or had profound impairment, and 73% died or had impairment. In multivariable analyses of infants who received intensive care, exposure to antenatal corticosteroids, female sex, singleton birth, and higher birth weight (per each 100-g increment) were each associated with reductions in the risk of death and the risk of death or profound or any neurodevelopmental impairment; these reductions were similar to those associated with a 1-week increase in gestational age. At the same estimated likelihood of a favorable outcome, girls were less likely than boys to receive intensive care. The outcomes for infants who underwent ventilation were better predicted with the use of the above factors than with use of gestational age alone. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of a favorable outcome with intensive care can be better estimated by consideration of four factors in addition to gestational age: sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, whether single or multiple birth, and birth weight. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00063063 [ClinicalTrials.gov] and NCT00009633 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Trauma care capacity and performance in Texas: Regional comparisons

Objective. The study reviewed one year of Texas hospital discharge data and Trauma Registry data for the 22 trauma services regions in Texas to identify regional variations in capacity, process of care and clinical outcomes for trauma patients, and analyze the statistical associations among capacity, process of care, and outcomes. ^ Methods. Cross sectional study design covering one year of state-wide Texas data. Indicators of trauma capacity, trauma care processes, and clinical outcomes were defined and data were collected on each indicator. Descriptive analyses were conducted of regional variations in trauma capacity, process of care, and clinical outcomes at all trauma centers, at Level I and II trauma centers and at Level III and IV trauma centers. Multilevel regression models were performed to test the relations among trauma capacity, process of care, and outcome measures at all trauma centers, at Level I and II trauma centers and at Level III and IV trauma centers while controlling for confounders such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, injury severity, level of trauma centers and urbanization. ^ Results. Significant regional variation was found among the 22 trauma services regions across Texas in trauma capacity, process of care, and clinical outcomes. The regional trauma bed rate, the average staffed bed per 100,000 varied significantly by trauma service region. Pre-hospital trauma care processes were significantly variable by region---EMS time, transfer time, and triage. Clinical outcomes including mortality, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital charges also varied significantly by region. In multilevel regression analysis, the average trauma bed rate was significantly related to trauma care processes including ambulance delivery time, transfer time, and triage after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, injury severity, level of trauma centers, and urbanization at all trauma centers. Transfer time only among processes of care was significant with the average trauma bed rate by region at Level III and IV. Also trauma mortality only among outcomes measures was significantly associated with the average trauma bed rate by region at all trauma centers. Hospital charges only among outcomes measures were statistically related to trauma bed rate at Level I and II trauma centers. The effect of confounders on processes and outcomes such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, injury severity, and urbanization was found significantly variable by level of trauma centers. ^ Conclusions. Regional variation in trauma capacity, process, and outcomes in Texas was extensive. Trauma capacity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, injury severity, level of trauma centers and urbanization were significantly associated with trauma process and clinical outcomes depending on level of trauma centers. ^ Key words: regionalized trauma systems, trauma capacity, pre-hospital trauma care, process, trauma outcomes, trauma performance, evaluation measures, regional variations ^