No abstract

BackgroundStudies show increased early and overall mortality at level II compared to level I trauma centers in hemodynamically unstable patients. We hypothesize there is no mortality difference between level I and level II centers applying more contemporary data. Study designUtilizing the 2017 Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File (TQP-PUF), we identified adult patients (age >14 years) who presented to an American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified level I or II center with hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mmHg). Logistic regression was performed to identify adjusted associations with mortality. ResultsA total of 7,264 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom most were males ( 4,924 [67.8%]) with blunt trauma (5,924 [81.6%]) being predominated. Mean admission SBP was 73.2 (±13.0) mmHg. There were 1,097 (15.1%) deaths. Level I admissions (4,931 (67.9%]) were more likely male (3,389 [68.7%] vs. 1,535 [65.8]; p=0.012), non-white (3,119 [63.3%] vs. 1,664 [71.3%]; p<0.001), a victim of penetrating trauma (933 [18.9%] vs. 385 [16.5%]; p=0.015), and more severely injured (mean Injury Severity Score: 19.3 [±15] vs. 16.7 [±13.7]; p<0.001). Level II admissions (2,333 [32.1%]) were older (46.8 [±18.5] vs. 50.3 [±20.1] years; p<0.001) with more co-morbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.43 [±2] vs. 1.77 [±2.2]; p<0.001). Adjusted mortality between level I and II admissions was similar (766 [15.5%] vs. 331 [14.2%]; p=0.918). Early hourly mortality also did not differ. ConclusionThere is no overall or hourly mortality discrepancy between ACS-verified level I and II centers for patients presenting with hypotension. This potentially relates to the use of more contemporary data gathered after implementation of updated verification requirements.

Objectives The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has affected the health care system significantly. We compare 2019 to 2020 to evaluate how trauma encounters has changed during the pandemic. Methods Retrospective analysis using a large US health care system to compare trauma demographics, volumes, mechanisms of injury, and outcomes. Statistical analysis was used to evaluate for significant differences comparing 2019 to 2020. Results Data was collected from 88 hospitals across 18 states. 169 892 patients were included in the study. There were 6.3% fewer trauma patient encounters in 2020 compared to 2019. Mechanism of injury was significantly different between 2019 and 2020 with less blunt injuries (89.64% vs. 88.39%, P < .001), more burn injuries (1.84% vs. 2.00%, P = .021), and more penetrating injuries (8.58% vs. 9.75%, P < .001). Compared to 2019, patients in 2020 had higher mortality (2.62% vs. 2.88%, P < .001), and longer hospital LOS (3.92 ± 6.90 vs. 4.06 ± 6.56, P < .001). Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected trauma patient demographics, LOS, mechanism of injury, and mortality.

Background Literature demonstrates increased mortality for the severely injured at a Level II vs. Level I center. Our objective is to reevaluate the impact of trauma center verification level on mortality for patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 utilizing more contemporary data. We hypothesize that there would be no mortality discrepancy. Study Design Utilizing the ACS Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File admission year 2017, we identified severely injured (ISS >15) adult (age >15 years) patients treated at an ACS-verified Level I or Level II center. We excluded patients who underwent interfacility transfer. Logistic regression was performed to determine adjusted associations with mortality. Results There were 63 518 patients included, where 43 680 (68.8%) were treated at a Level I center and 19 838 (31.2%) at a Level II. Male gender (70.1%) and blunt injuries (92.0%) predominated. Level I admissions had a higher mean ISS [23.8 (±8.5) vs. 22.9 (±7.8), <.001], while Level II patients were older [mean age (y) 52.3 (±21.6) vs. 48.6 (±21.0), <.001] with multiple comorbidities (37.7% vs. 34.9%, <.001). Adjusted mortality between Level I and II centers was similar (12.0% vs. 11.8%, .570). Conclusions Despite previous findings, mortality outcomes are similar for severely injured patients treated at a Level I vs. Level II center. We theorize that this relates to mandated Level II resourcing as defined by an updated American College of Surgeons verification process.