Nils Oddvar Skaga

Precision of field triage in patients brought to a trauma centre after introducing trauma team activation guidelines

BackgroundField triage is important for regional trauma systems providing high sensitivity to avoid that severely injured are deprived access to trauma team resuscitation (undertriage), yet high specificity to avoid resource over-utilization (overtriage). Previous informal trauma team activation (TTA) at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) caused imprecise triage. We have analyzed triage precision after introduction of TTA guidelines.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 7 years (2001–07) of prospectively collected trauma registry data for all patients with TTA or severe injury, defined as at least one of the following: Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, proximal penetrating injury, admitted ICU > 2 days, transferred intubated to another hospital within 2 days, dead from trauma within 30 days. Interhospital transfers to UUH and patients admitted by non-healthcare personnel were excluded. Overtriage is the fraction of TTA where patients are not severely injured (1-positive predictive value); undertriage is the fraction of severely injured admitted without TTA (1-sensitivity).ResultsOf the 4 659 patients included in the study, 2 221 (48%) were severely injured. TTA occurred 4 440 times, only 2 002 of which for severely injured (overtriage 55%). Overall undertriage was 10%. Mechanism of injury was TTA criterion in 1 508 cases (34%), of which only 392 were severely injured (overtriage 74%). Paramedic-manned prehospital services provided 66% overtriage and 17% undertriage, anaesthetist-manned services 35% overtriage and 2% undertriage. Falls, high age and admittance by paramedics were significantly associated with undertriage. A Triage-Revised Trauma Score (RTS) < 12 in the emergency department reduced the risk for undertriage compared to RTS = 12 (normal value). Field RTS was documented by anaesthetists in 64% of the patients compared to 33% among paramedics.Patients subject to undertriage had an ISS-adjusted Odds Ratio for 30-day mortality of 2.34 (95% CI 1.6–3.4, p < 0.001) compared to those correctly triaged to TTA.ConclusionTriage precision had not improved after TTA guideline introduction. Anaesthetists perform precise trauma triage, whereas paramedics have potential for improvement. Skewed mission profiles makes comparison of differences in triage precision difficult, but criteria or the use of them may contribute. Massive undertriage among paramedics is of grave concern as patients exposed to undertriage had increased risk of dying.

Scandinavian guidelines - "The massively bleeding patient"

c. gaarder, Trauma Unit, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway p. a. naess, Trauma Unit, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway e. Frischknecht christensen, Aarhus Trauma Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark p. hakala, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland l. handolin, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland h. e. heier, Department of Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway K. ivancev, Endovascular Centre, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden p. Johansson, Department of Clinical Immunology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark a. leppäniemi, Department of Surgery, Meilahti Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland F. lippert, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark h. m. lossius, Norwegian Air Ambulance, Drøbak, Norway h. Opdahl, Intensive Care Unit/NBC centre, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway J. pillgram-larsen, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway O. Røise, Orthopaedic Centre, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway n. O. skaga, Department of Anaesthesia, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway e. søreide, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway J. stensballe, Department of Anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark e. Tønnessen, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark a. Töttermann, Department of Orthopaedics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden p. ́́ Ortenwall, Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden a. ́́ Ostlund, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

A protocol for angiographic embolization in exsanguinating pelvic trauma: A report on 31 patients

Background The indication for acquiring angiographic embolization in the initial treatment of severe pelvic fractures is controversial. We describe the characteristics and outcome of 31 patients with traumatic pelvic bleeding who underwent percutaneous angiography with embolization according to a standardized protocol. Patients and methods During an 8.5-year period, 1,260 patients were treated for pelvic trauma. We performed a prospective registration of the 46 patients who underwent angiography, and report the 31 patients who had signs of significant arterial injury on angiography, necessitating embolization. Results The rate of significant arterial injury after pelvic trauma was 2.5%. All patients had been subjected to high-energy injuries and all were severely injured as measured by the Injury Severity Score: 41 (17–66). Pelvic arterial injury was observed with all types of pelvic trauma, including isolated acetabular (4/31) and sacral fractures (3/31). The internal iliac artery or its branches was injured in 28 of 31 patients. Survival rate after embolization was 84%, and correlated inversely with increasing patient age. None of the patients died of bleeding. Interpretation Our findings show that significant pelvic arterial injuries occur in a minority of patients after pelvic trauma, and predominantly affect patients with multiple high-energy injuries regardless of fracture type. The effect of angiographic embolization was good.

Emergency Thoracotomy Saves Lives in a Scandinavian Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND : Emergency thoracotomy (ET) is a life-saving procedure used to control hemorrhage and relieve cardiac tamponade. It has been in routine use at Ulleval University Hospital since 1987. Our objective was to see the outcome of patients subjected to ET in recent times. METHODS : One hundred and nine consecutive ET performed in our emergency department during a 6-year period were analyzed. Data were drawn from the hospitals trauma registry. Demographics, mechanism of injury, anatomic injuries, physiologic status, interventions, time lapse, and outcome 30 days after injury were registered prospectively. RESULTS : Ten of 27 patients with penetrating (37%) and 10 of 82 patients with blunt injuries (12%) survived, giving a total survival of 18%. Median (quartiles) for the following parameters were Injury Severity Score 38 (26-50), Revised Trauma Score 1.3 (0-3.9), Glasgow Coma Scale score 3 (3-6), and probability of survival 0.06 (0.001-0.22). Survivors from penetrating injuries had significantly lower Injury Severity Score (25 vs. 34, p = 0.003), higher Revised Trauma Score (3.92 vs. 0.00, p < 0.001), higher Glasgow Coma Scale score (8 vs. 3, p < 0.001), and higher probability of survival (0.74 vs. 0.01, p < 0.001) than nonsurvivors. Conversely, no such differences were found for patients with blunt injury. Multiple logistic regression analysis failed to reveal any predictors of survival. CONCLUSION : An overall survival of 18% suggests that ET is a life saving procedure. It is difficult to find good predictors of survival from logistic regression analysis. It should, for a trained trauma team, be a liberal attitude toward performing the procedure on the agonal patient.

Long-Lasting Performance Improvement After Formalization of a Dedicated Trauma Service

BACKGROUND Few studies have evaluated intrainstitutional improvement of trauma care. We hypothesized that the formalization of a dedicated multidisciplinary trauma service in a major Scandinavian trauma center in 2005 would result in improved outcome. METHODS Institutional trauma registry data for 7,243 consecutive patients from the years 2002-2008 were retrospectively evaluated using variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) as one of several performance indicators. VLAD is a refinement of the cumulative sum method that adjusts death and survival by each patients risk status (probability of survival) and provides a graphical display of performance over time. Probability of survival was calculated according to Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology with National Trauma Data Bank 2005 coefficients. RESULTS VLAD demonstrated a sharp increase in cumulative survival starting at the beginning of 2005 and continuing linearly throughout the study period, amounting to 68 additional saved lives. The increase was mainly caused by improved survival among the critically injured (injury severity score 25-75). A cutoff point t0 for analysis of differences between time periods was set at January 1, 2005, coinciding with the formalization of a dedicated trauma service. Mortality in the whole trauma population showed a 33% decrease after t0. W-statistics confirmed the increased survival to be significant. There were no significant changes in age, gender, or injury mechanism. Injury severity score decreased, but differences in case mix were adjusted for in the survival prediction model. CONCLUSION We have shown that the start of the long-lasting performance improvement coincided with formalization of a dedicated trauma service, providing increased multidisciplinary focus on all aspects of trauma care.

Abbreviated Injury Scale: Not a reliable basis for summation of injury severity in trauma facilities?

BACKGROUND Injury severity is most frequently classified using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) as a basis for the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which are used for assessment of overall injury severity in the multiply injured patient and in outcome prediction. European trauma registries recommended the AIS 2008 edition, but the levels of inter-rater agreement and reliability of ISS and NISS, associated with its use, have not been reported. METHODS Nineteen Norwegian AIS-certified trauma registry coders were invited to score 50 real, anonymised patient medical records using AIS 2008. Rater agreements for ISS and NISS were analysed using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). A clinically acceptable LoA range was set at ± 9 units. Reliability was analysed using a two-way mixed model intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering. RESULTS Ten coders submitted their coding results. Of their AIS codes, 2189 (61.5%) agreed with a reference standard, 1187 (31.1%) real injuries were missed, and 392 non-existing injuries were recorded. All LoAs were wider than the predefined, clinically acceptable limit of ± 9, for both ISS and NISS. The joint ICC (range) between each rater and the reference standard was 0.51 (0.29,0.86) for ISS and 0.51 (0.27,0.78) for NISS. The joint ICC (range) for inter-rater reliability was 0.49 (0.19,0.85) for ISS and 0.49 (0.16,0.82) for NISS. Univariate linear regression analyses indicated a significant relationship between the number of correctly AIS-coded injuries and total number of cases coded during the raters career, but no significant relationship between the rater-against-reference ISS and NISS ICC values and total number of cases coded during the raters career. CONCLUSIONS Based on AIS 2008, ISS and NISS were not reliable for summarising anatomic injury severity in this study. This result indicates a limitation in their use as benchmarking tools for trauma system performance.

Classification of comorbidity in trauma: the reliability of pre-injury ASA physical status classification.

BACKGROUND Pre-injury comorbidities can influence the outcomes of severely injured patients. Pre-injury comorbidity status, graded according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system, is an independent predictor of survival in trauma patients and is recommended as a comorbidity score in the Utstein Trauma Template for Uniform Reporting of Data. Little is known about the reliability of pre-injury ASA-PS scores. The objective of this study was to examine whether the pre-injury ASA-PS system was a reliable scale for grading comorbidity in trauma patients. METHODS Nineteen Norwegian trauma registry coders were invited to participate in a reliability study in which 50 real but anonymised patient medical records were distributed. Reliability was analysed using quadratic weighted kappa (κ(w)) analysis with 95% CI as the primary outcome measure and unweighted kappa (κ) analysis, which included unknown values, as a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS Fifteen of the invitees responded to the invitation, and ten participated. We found moderate (κ(w)=0.77 [95% CI: 0.64-0.87]) to substantial (κ(w)=0.95 [95% CI: 0.89-0.99]) rater-against-reference standard reliability using κ(w) and fair (κ=0.46 [95% CI: 0.29-0.64]) to substantial (κ=0.83 [95% CI: 0.68-0.94]) reliability using κ. The inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate (κ(w)=0.66 [95% CI: 0.45-0.81]) to substantial (κ(w)=0.96 [95% CI: 0.88-1.00]) for κ(w) and from slight (κ=0.36 [95% CI: 0.21-0.54]) to moderate (κ=0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.89]) for κ. CONCLUSIONS The rater-against-reference standard reliability varied from moderate to substantial for the primary outcome measure and from fair to substantial for the secondary outcome measure. The study findings indicate that the pre-injury ASA-PS scale is a reliable score for classifying comorbidity in trauma patients.

Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma: modelling effects of anatomic injury, acute physiology, age, and co‐morbidity

Anatomic injury, physiological derangement, age, and injury mechanism are well‐founded predictors of trauma outcome. We aimed to develop and validate the first Scandinavian survival prediction model for trauma.

Comparison of the predictive performance of the BIG, TRISS and PS09 score in an adult trauma population derived from multiple international trauma registries

BackgroundThe BIG score (Admission base deficit (B), International normalized ratio (I), andGlasgow Coma Scale (G)) has been shown to predict mortality on admission inpediatric trauma patients. The objective of this study was to assess itsperformance in predicting mortality in an adult trauma population, and to compareit with the existing Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and probability ofsurvival (PS09) score.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis using data collected between 2005 and 2010 from seventrauma centers and registries in Europe and the United States of America wasperformed. We compared the BIG score with TRISS and PS09 scores in a population ofblunt and penetrating trauma patients. We then assessed the discrimination abilityof all scores via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared theexpected mortality rate (precision) of all scores with the observed mortalityrate.ResultsIn total, 12,206 datasets were retrieved to validate the BIG score. The mean ISSwas 15 ± 11, and the mean 30-day mortality rate was 4.8%. With an AUROC of0.892 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.879 to 0.906), the BIG score performed wellin an adult population. TRISS had an area under ROC (AUROC) of 0.922 (0.913 to0.932) and the PS09 score of 0.825 (0.915 to 0.934). On a penetrating-traumapopulation, the BIG score had an AUROC result of 0.920 (0.898 to 0.942) comparedwith the PS09 score (AUROC of 0.921; 0.902 to 0.939) and TRISS (0.929; 0.912 to0.947).ConclusionsThe BIG score is a good predictor of mortality in the adult trauma population. Itperformed well compared with TRISS and the PS09 score, although it hassignificantly less discriminative ability. In a penetrating-trauma population, theBIG score performed better than in a population with blunt trauma. The BIG scorehas the advantage of being available shortly after admission and may be used topredict clinical prognosis or as a research tool to risk stratify trauma patientsinto clinical trials.

External validation of a prognostic model for early mortality after traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of lost disability-adjusted life years, and a valid model allowing prediction of outcome would be welcome. For a clinical prediction model to be valid, generalization to other populations must be possible. The aim of this study was to externally validate a model for in-hospital mortality in patients with TBI, which was recently development at the University of Southern California (USC). METHODS The validation cohort was derived from a hospital-based, prospectively collected trauma registry in Oslo, Norway. We included patients admitted with a head injury without hypotension, severe thoracic, or abdominal injury (n = 3,136). We calculated the probability of death according to the USC model. The performance of the model was evaluated using measures of calibration and discrimination in the total sample and subgroups according to initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. RESULTS The USC model provided excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC = 0.93), but unsatisfactory calibration (p < 0.001) for the total sample (GCS 3-15). In the GCS 4-8 subgroup we found good discrimination (AUC = 0.89) but poor calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION The findings question the external validity of the USC model, suggesting that it should not be implemented as a tool for short-term mortality prediction in our TBI population.