BackgroundOver the past, the severe thoracic trauma has had decisive influence on the outcome of multiple injured patients. Today, new therapies (e.g. extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), protective ventilation methods and new forms of patient positioning) are available and applied regularly. What impact on the patient’s outcome does the thoracic trauma have today?MethodsProspective data collection of multiple injured patients in a level-I trauma center was performed between 2008 and 2014. Patients with an ISS ≥16 were included and divided into 2 groups: Severe thoracic trauma (STT: AISThorax ≥ 3) and mild thoracic trauma (MTT: AISThorax < 3). In addition to preclinical and trauma room care, detailed information about clinical course and outcome were assessed.ResultsIn total, 529 patients (STT: n = 317; MTT: n = 212) met the in- and exclusion criteria. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was significantly higher in patients of the STT group (STT: 33.5 vs. MTT: 24.7; p < 0.001), while the RISC II Score showed no significant differences (STT: 20.0 vs. MTT: 17.1; p = 0.241). Preclinical data revealed a higher intubation rate, more chest tube insertions and a higher use of catecholamines in the STT group (p < 0.05). Clinically, we found significant differences in the duration of invasive ventilation (STT: 7.3d vs. MTT: 5.4d; p = 0.001) and ICU stay (STT: 12.3d vs. MTT: 9.4d; p < 0.001). While the complication rate was higher for the STT group (sepsis (STT: 11.4% vs. MTT: 5.7%; p = 0.017); lung failure (STT: 23.7% vs. MTT: 12.3%; p = 0,001)), neither the non-adjusted lethality rate (STT: 13.2% vs. MTT: 13.7%; p = 0.493) nor the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) showed significant differences (STT: 0.66 vs. MTT: 0.80; p = 0.397). The multivariate regressive analysis confirmed that severe thoracic trauma is not an independent risk factor for lethality in our patient cohort.ConclusionDespite a higher injury severity, the extended need of emergency measures and a higher rate of complications in injured patients with severe blunt thoracic trauma, no influence on lethality can be proved. The reduction of the complication rate should be a goal for the next decades.

BackgroundTrauma is a global burden of disease and one of the main causes of death worldwide. Therefore, many countries around the world have implemented a wide range of different initiatives to minimize mortality rates after trauma. One of these initiatives is the bundling of treatment expertise in trauma centers and the establishment of trauma networks.Germany has a decentralized system of trauma care medical centers. Severely injured patients ought to receive adequate treatment in both level I and level II centers. This study investigated the effectiveness of a decentralized network and the question whether level I and level II centers have comparable patient outcome.Materials and methodsIn 2009, the first trauma network DGU® in Germany was certified in the rural area of Eastern Bavaria. All patients admitted to the 25 participating hospitals were prospectively included in this network in the framework of a study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research between March 2012 and February 2014. 2 hospitals were level I centers (maximal care centers), 8 hospitals were level II centers, and 15 hospitals were level III centers. The criterion for study inclusion was an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 for patients´ primarily admitted to a level I or a level II center. Exclusion criteria were transferal to another hospital within 48 h, an unknown revised injury severity classification II score (RISC II), or primary admittance to a level III center (n = 52). 875 patients were included in the study.Univariate analyses were used regarding the preclinical and clinical parameters, the primary endpoint mortality rate, and the secondary endpoints length of stay, organ failure, and neurological outcome (GOS). The primary endpoint was additionally evaluated by means of multivariable analysis.ResultsIndices for injury severity (GCS, AISHead, ISS, and NISS) as well as the predicted probability of death (RISC II) were higher in level I centers than in level II centers.No significant differences were found between the mortality rate of the unadjusted analysis [level I: 21.6% (CI: 16.5, 27.9), level II: 18.1% (CI: 14.4, 22.5), p = 0.28] and that of the adjusted analysis [level I SMR: 0.94 (CI: 0.72, 1.21), level II SMR: 1.18 (CI 0.95, 1.48) SMR: expected vs. calculated mortality rate according to RISC II]. Multivariable analysis showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13% (RISC II). The number need to treat was 10 patients.DiscussionThis study showed that a rural trauma network with centralized and local structures may achieve equivalent results with regard to mortality rates to those obtained in level I and level II centers. These results were furthered by a certain preclinical centralization (24/7 air rescue) of patients. The study also showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13%. Preclinical and initial clinical evaluation with regard to probable mortality rates should be further improv...

No abstract