Penetrating injuries of the thorax and abdomen: Type of medical-care institution and case fatality

The purpose of this study was to determine, for penetrating injuries (gunshot, stab) of the chest/abdomen, the impact on fatality of treatment in trauma centers and shock trauma units compared with general hospitals. Medical records of all cases of penetrating injury limited to chest/abdomen and admitted to and discharged from 7 study facilities in Baltimore city 1979-1980 (n = 581) were studied: 4 general hospitals (n = 241), 2 area-wide trauma centers (n = 298), and a shock trauma unit (n = 42). Emergency center and transferred cases were not studied. Anatomical injury severity, measured by modified Injury Severity Score (mISS), was a significant prognostic factor for death, as were cardiovascular shock (SBP $\le$ 70), injury type (gunshot vs stab), and ambulance/helicopter (vs other) transport. All deaths occurred in cases with two or more prognostic factors. Unadjusted relative risks of death compared with general hospitals were 4.3 (95% confidence interval = 2.2, 8.4) for shock trauma and 0.8 (0.4, 1.7) for trauma centers. Controlling for prognostic factors by logistic regression resulted in these relative risks: shock trauma 4.0 (0.7, 22.2), and trauma centers 0.8 (0.2, 3.2). Factors significantly associated with increased risk had the following relative risks by multiple logistic regression: SBP $\le$ 70 (RR = 40.7 (11.0, 148.7)), highest mISS (42 (7.7, 227)), gunshot (8.4 (2.1, 32.6)), and ambulance/helicopter transport (17.2 (1.3, 228.1)). Controlling for age, race, and gender did not alter results significantly. Actual deaths compared with deaths predicted from a multivariable model of general-hospital cases showed 3.7 more than predicted deaths in shock trauma (SMR = 1.6 (0.8, 2.9)) and 0.7 more than predicted deaths in area-wide trauma centers (SMR = 1.05 (0.6, 1.7)). Selection bias due to exclusion of transfers and emergency center cases, and residual confounding due to insufficient injury information, may account for persistence of adjusted high case fatality in shock trauma. Studying all cases prospectively, including emergency center and transferred cases, is needed. ^

SEVERE HEAD TRAUMA, EMERGENCY TRANSPORT, AND PATIENT OUTCOME

Trauma and severe head injuries are important issues because they are prevalent, because they occur predominantly in the young, and because variations in clinical management may matter. Trauma is the leading cause of death for those under age 40. The focus of this head injury study is to determine if variations in time from the scene of accident to a trauma center hospital makes a difference in patient outcomes.^ A trauma registry is maintained in the Houston-Galveston area and includes all patients admitted to any one of three trauma center hospitals with mild or severe head injuries. A study cohort, derived from the Registry, includes 254 severe head injury cases, for 1980, with a Glasgow Coma Score of 8 or less.^ Multiple influences relate to patient outcomes from severe head injury. Two primary variables and four confounding variables are identified, including time to emergency room, time to intubation, patient age, severity of injury, type of injury and mode of transport to the emergency room. Regression analysis, analysis of variance, and chi-square analysis were the principal statistical methods utilized.^ Analysis indicates that within an urban setting, with a four-hour time span, variations in time to emergency room do not provide any strong influence or predictive value to patient outcome. However, data are suggestive that at longer time periods there is a negative influence on outcomes. Age is influential only when the older group (55-64) is included. Mode of transport (helicopter or ambulance) did not indicate any significant difference in outcome.^ In a multivariate regression model, outcomes are influenced primarily by severity of injury and age which explain 36% (R('2)) of variance. Inclusion of time to emergency room, time to intubation, transport mode and type injury add only 4% (R('2)) additional contribution to explaining variation in patient outcome.^ The research concludes that since the group most at risk to head trauma is the young adult male involved in automobile/motorcycle accidents, more may be gained by modifying driving habits and other preventive measures. Continuous clinical and evaluative research are required to provide updated clinical wisdom in patient management and trauma treatment protocols. A National Institute of Trauma may be required to develop a national public policy and evaluate the many medical, behavioral and social changes required to cope with the country's number 3 killer and the primary killer of young adults.^