Prehospital identification of major trauma patients

Background and aims  Prehospital triage is aimed at getting the right patient to the right hospital. Evaluations on the performance of prehospital triage tools are scarce. This study examines the ability of the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) triage guidelines to identify major trauma patients in a European trauma system. Furthermore, this study evaluates the predictive power of other prehospital measurements. Materials and methods  Prehospital data of 151 minor (Injury Severity Score (ISS) 1–15) and 151 major trauma patients, (ISS > 15) treated at a Dutch trauma center, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of major trauma patients. Results  The major trauma patients particularly incurred severe head injuries (45.7%) and severe thorax injuries (21.9%). The ACSCOT guidelines had a sensitivity of 84.1% and a specificity of 77.5%. A new prehospital trauma triage model was constructed including nine predictors of major trauma. This model identified more major trauma patients than the ACSCOT (sensitivity 92.1%, p = 0.023) and resulted in a comparable specificity (79.5%; p = 0.711). Conclusion  The new triage model outperforms the ACSCOT triage guidelines in identifying major trauma patients in the prehospital setting. The new triage guidelines may improve patient outcomes but needs to be validated in a prospective study.     

Unification of the revised trauma score

BACKGROUND: The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) calculated with Major Outcome Trauma Study weights (MTOS-RTS) is currently the standard physiologic severity score in trauma research and quality control. It is often confused with the Triage-RTS (T-RTS), a version that is easier to calculate but only intended for clinical triage. OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of the MTOS-RTS to the RTS calculated with weights derived from the study population (POP-RTS) and the T-RTS, for predicting mortality in a trauma population. METHODS: The study population consists of 22,388 patients, drawn from the trauma registries of three Level I trauma centers. The predictive accuracy of the MTOS-RTS, POP-RTS, and the T-RTS were compared using measures of discrimination and model fit from logistic regression models. RESULTS: The MTOS-RTS, the POP-RTS, and the T-RTS had the same discrimination (Area under the Receiver Operating Curve [AUC] = 0.841). The POP-RTS and the T-RTS had a slightly better model fit than the MTOS-RTS (AIC = 8010, 8010, and 8067, respectively). The T-RTS had equal discrimination and equal or better model fit than the MTOS-RTS in the whole sample, in each of the three trauma centers and in the population of patients with severe head trauma. The T-RTS was also equivalent to the POP-RTS in all of these population sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: The T-RTS could replace the MTOS-RTS as the standard physiologic severity score for trauma outcome prediction. The advantages of using the T-RTS over the MTOS-RTS are ease of calculation, the need for only one measure for triage and mortality prediction purposes and universal adaptation to a broad range of trauma populations.     

Respiratory rate as a prehospital triage tool in rural trauma

BACKGROUND: Where trauma systems do not exist, such as in low-income countries, the aim of prehospital triage is identification of trauma victims with high priority for forward resuscitation. The present pilot study explored the accuracy of simple prehospital triage tools in the hands of nongraduate trauma care providers in the minefields of North Iraq and Cambodia. METHODS: Prehospital prediction of trauma death and major trauma victims (Injury Severity Score > 15) was studied in 737 adult patients with penetrating injuries and long evacuation times (mean, 6.1 hours). RESULTS: Both the respiratory rate and the full Physiologic Severity Score predicted trauma death with high accuracy (area under the curve for receiver-operating characteristic plots at 0.9) and significantly better than other physiologic indicators. The accuracy in major trauma victim identification was moderate for all physiologic indicators (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.7-0.8). CONCLUSION: Respiratory rate > 25 breaths/min may be a useful triage tool for nongraduate trauma care providers where the scene is chaotic and evacuations long. Further studies on larger cohorts are necessary to validate the results.     

The differential survival of trauma patients

Advances in prehospital care and the development of regionalized trauma centers have reduced the mortality from major trauma. However, patients who have sustained severe brain injuries (Glasgow Coma Score less than or equal to 8) treated in such a setting still have a substantial mortality. In order to determine if mortality is a function of severe brain injury, 545 trauma patients with and without severe brain injury were prospectively studied. All patients were similarly treated by one medical center from the actual site of injury until discharge from the hospital. There were 104 patients who had sustained major blunt trauma with severe brain injury and 441 patients who had sustained major blunt trauma without severe brain injury. The mortality of the former group was 30.8%, whereas that of the latter group was 0.9% (p less than 0.0001).     

Evaluating performance of statewide regionalized systems of trauma care

A new methodology is presented for evaluating the extent to which patients within regionalized systems of trauma care are treated at the appropriate hospitals. Criteria are proposed for retrospectively classifying trauma patients as to whether they should have been treated at a trauma center. The criteria were developed by a panel of nationally recognized trauma experts and are based on the age of the patient and the type and AIS severity of injuries sustained. The criteria were then applied to uniformly collected data available for all trauma discharges in 1988 from acute care hospitals in a state with a well developed system of regionalized trauma care. According to the criteria, 19% of all trauma discharges in 1988 should have been treated at a trauma centers. Of those who should have been treated at a trauma center according to criteria, 66% actually received treatment at a center. Of those who were classified not to have required care at a trauma center, 62% actually were treated at non-trauma center hospitals. The congruence between where patients should have been treated and the actual level of hospital care received varied by the type and severity of the traumatic injuries sustained. The results of the analysis provide insights into the characteristics of trauma patients at higher risk of not getting the appropriate level of trauma care and should assist in improving guidelines for triage and transfer within a regionalized system of care.     

Differentiation of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients using pre-hospital trauma triage criteria

Background

There is a paucity of literature comparing trauma patients who meet pre-hospital trauma triage guidelines (‘potential major trauma’) with trauma patients who are identified as ‘confirmed major trauma patients’ at hospital discharge. This type of epidemiological surveillance is critical to continuous performance monitoring of mature trauma care systems. The current study aimed to determine if the current trauma triage criteria resulted in under/over-triage and whether the triage criteria were being adhered to.

Methods

For a 12-month time period there were 45,332 adult (≥16 years of age) trauma patients transported by ambulance to hospitals in metropolitan Melbourne. This retrospective study analysed data from 1166 patients identified at hospital discharge as ‘confirmed major trauma patients’ and 16,479 patients captured by the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria, who did not go on to meet the definition of confirmed major trauma. These patients comprise the ‘potential major trauma’ group. Non-major trauma patients (N = 27,687) were excluded from the study. Pre-hospital data was sourced from the Victorian Ambulance Clinical Information System (VACIS) and hospital data was sourced from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). Statistical analyses compared the characteristics of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma patients according to the current trauma triage criteria.

Results

The leading causes of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma were motor vehicle collisions (30.1% vs. 19.2%) and falls (30.0% vs. 48.7%). More than 80% of confirmed major trauma and 24.4% of potential major trauma patients were directly transported to a major trauma service. Overall, similar numbers of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients had one or more aberrant vital signs (67.0% vs. 66.4%). Specific injuries meeting triage criteria were sustained by 69.2% of confirmed major trauma patients and 51.4% of potential major trauma patients, while 11.7% of confirmed major trauma patients and 4.6% of potential major trauma patients met the combined mechanism of injury criteria.

Conclusions

While the sensitivity of the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria is high, if paramedics strictly followed the criteria there would be significant over-triage. Triage models using different mechanistic and physiologic criteria should be evaluated.     

Predictors of hypofibrinogenemia in blunt trauma patients on admission

Purpose

Massive bleeding usually leads to critically low levels of clotting factors, including fibrinogen. Although reduced fibrinogen levels correlate with increased mortality, predictors of hypofibrinogenemia have remained poorly understood. We investigated whether findings available on admission can be used as predictors of hypofibrinogenemia.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed serum fibrinogen levels tested on arrival in 290 blunt trauma patients transported to a level I trauma center during a 3-year period. The primary outcome was prehospital predictors for hypofibrinogenemia. Covariates included age, sex, prehospital fluid therapy, prehospital anatomical and physiological scores, time from injury, base excess, and lactate on arrival. All variables with values of p < 0.10 in univariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. The relationships between the variables and the 7-day mortality rate were evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

Patient’s age [odds ratio (OR): 0.97, p < 0.001], Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) (OR: 0.81, p = 0.003), and prehospital fluid therapy (OR: 2.54, p = 0.01) were detected as independent predictors for hypofibrinogenemia in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Serum fibrinogen level [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99, p = 0.01] and T-RTS (HR: 0.77, p < 0.01) were associated with the 7-day mortality rate.

Conclusion

T-RTS is considered to play an important role in predicting hypofibrinogenemia and 7-day mortality in blunt trauma patients.

     

Prehospital education in triage for pediatric and pregnant patients in a regional trauma system without collocated pediatric and adult trauma centers

Purpose

Patient triage to the appropriate destination is critical to prehospital trauma care. Triage decisions are challenging in a region without collocated pediatric and adult trauma centers.

A revision of the Trauma Score

The Trauma Score (TS) has been revised. The revision includes Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and respiratory rate (RR) and excludes capillary refill and respiratory expansion, which were difficult to assess in the field. Two versions of the revised score have been developed, one for triage (T-RTS) and another for use in outcome evaluations and to control for injury severity (RTS). T-RTS, the sum of coded values of GCS, SBP, and RR, demonstrated increased sensitivity and some loss in specificity when compared with a triage criterion based on TS and GCS values. T-RTS correctly identified more than 97% of nonsurvivors as requiring trauma center care. The T-RTS triage criterion does not require summing of the coded values and is more easily implemented than the TS criterion. RTS is a weighted sum of coded variable values. The RTS demonstrated substantially improved reliability in outcome predictions compared to the TS. The RTS also yielded more accurate outcome predictions for patients with serious head injuries than the TS.     

Evaluation of trauma care by comparing mortality risks and admission policy in a Dutch trauma region

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of trauma care in the Netherlands compared to UK norms and in terms of mortality risks in three groups of patients. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in risk of hospital death between major trauma patients transferred from another hospital to the trauma centre and patients directly admitted to the trauma centre. METHODS: Trauma admissions (n=17 023) during the period 2000-2006 in 12 emergency departments were selected from a regional trauma registry database. In the analysis, the dependent variable was death within 30 days of admission. W-Statistics (W(s)) was used to compare outcomes of the total Dutch trauma population and the population admitted to the trauma centre, with norms for England and Wales. The effect of direct admission to a non-trauma centre and immediate admission to a trauma centre for major trauma patients versus indirect admission was tested in a logistic model and adjusted for confounding. RESULTS: 444 (2.6%) patients died within 30 days of admission. 6.1% of all patients were major trauma patients. W(s) resulted in 1.39 (95% CI 1.08-1.70) more observed survivors per 100 admitted trauma patients standardised for case mix using UK norms. W(s) of trauma patients in the trauma centre resulted in 0.85 (95% CI 0.44-1.27) more survivors than expected. Patients directly admitted to a trauma centre or a non-trauma centre without transfer were found to have a non-significant increasing risk of mortality (OR 1.5 (95% CI 0.7-3.4) and 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-4.1), respectively) compared to patients transferred from another hospital to a trauma centre. CONCLUSION: Trauma care in this Dutch province is performing better than expected comparing to the norms for the England and Wales. The admission policy of transporting major trauma patients to the nearest hospital and, if necessary, then transferring them to the trauma centre, seems legitimate in Dutch trauma care.     

Secondary overtriage: a consequence of an immature trauma system

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems are designed to bring the injured patient to definitive care in the shortest practical time. This depends on prehospital destination criteria (primary triage) and interfacility transfer guidelines (secondary triage). Although primary undertriage is associated with increased costs and worse outcomes for selected injuries, secondary overtriage can overwhelm system resources and delay definitive care. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of secondary overtriage in a region without a formal trauma system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of trauma registry data at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma-verified Level I trauma center and regional referral center. Secondary overtriage was defined as patients transferred from another hospital emergency department to our trauma receiving unit who had an injury severity score < 10, did not require an operation, and who were discharged to home within 48 hours of admission. RESULTS: Data on 9,064 patients were reviewed; 6,875 (76%) arrived directly from the scene and 2,189 (24%) were transferred. Although the transferred group was more severely injured, the majority (64%) had minor injuries and 824 (39%) met secondary overtriage criteria. The degree of secondary overtriage and injury pattern varied with respect to referring facility. Peak admission day and times for overtriage patients coincided with scene admissions trauma receiving unit closure events. Patient payor mix and facility cost and reimbursement profiles did not differ between scene and transfer overtriage patients. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of transferred trauma patients require only brief diagnostic or observational care. Excessive overtriage calls for development of a regional inclusive trauma system with established primary and secondary triage guidelines to improve access to care and trauma system efficiency.     

Identification of thoracic injuries by emergency medical services providers among trauma patients

IntroductionSevere thoracic injuries are time sensitive and adequate triage to a facility with a high-level of trauma care is crucial. The emergency medical services (EMS) providers are required to identify patients with a severe thoracic injury to transport the patient to the right hospital. However, identifying these patients on-scene is difficult. The accuracy of prehospital assessment of potential thoracic injury by EMS providers of the ground ambulances is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the assessment of the EMS provider in the identification of a thoracic injury and determine predictors of a severe thoracic injury.MethodsIn this multicentre cohort study, all trauma patients aged 16 and over, transported with a ground erence standard. Prehospital variables were analysed using logistic regression to explore prehospital ambulance to a trauma centre, were evaluated. The diagnostic value of EMS provider judgment was determined using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of ≥ 1 in the thoracic region as ref predictors of a severe thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 3).ResultsIn total 2766 patients were included, of whom 465 (16.8%) sustained a thoracic injury and 210 (7.6%) a severe thoracic injury. The EMS providers’ judgment had a sensitivity of 54.8% and a specificity of 92.6% for the identification of a thoracic injury. Significant independent prehospital predictors were: age, oxygen saturation, Glasgow Coma Scale, fall > 2 m, and suspicion of inhalation trauma or a thoracic injury by the EMS provider.ConclusionEMS providers could identify little over half of the patients with a thoracic injury. A supplementary triage protocol to identify patients with a thoracic injury could improve prehospital triage of these patients. In this supplementary protocol, age, vital signs, and mechanism criteria could be included.     

Compliance to prehospital trauma triage protocols worldwide: A systematic review

BackgroundEmergency medical services (EMS) providers must determine the injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide on the most appropriate hospital destination for the patient. Many severely injured patients are not transported to higher-level trauma centres. An accurate triage protocol is the base of prehospital trauma triage; however, ultimately the quality is dependent on the destination decision by the EMS provider. The aim of this systematic review is to describe compliance to triage protocols and evaluate compliance to the different categories of triage protocols.MethodsAn extensive search of MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane library was performed to identify all studies, published before May 2018, describing compliance to triage protocols in a trauma system. The search terms were a combination of synonyms for ‘compliance,’ ‘trauma,’ and ‘triage’.ResultsAfter selection, 11 articles were included. The studies showed a variety in compliance rates, ranging from 21% to 93% for triage protocols, and 41% to 94% for the different categories. The compliance rate was highest for the criterion: penetrating injury. The category of the protocol with the lowest compliance rate was: vital signs. Compliance rates were lower for elderly patients, compared to adults under the age of 55. The methodological quality of most studies was poor. One study with good methodological quality showed that the triage protocol identified only a minority of severely injured patients, but many of whom were transported to higher-level trauma centres.ConclusionsThe compliance rate ranged from 21% to 94%. Prehospital trauma triage effectiveness could be increased with an accurate triage protocol and improved compliance rates. EMS provider judgment could lower the undertriage rate, especially for severely injured patients meeting none of the criteria. Future research should focus on the improvement of triage protocols and the compliance rate.     

Is paramedic judgement useful in prehospital trauma triage?

Precise prehospital trauma triage criteria are critical for ensuring patients with severe injuries are transported to trauma centres. Most prehospital trauma triage criteria adopt a combination of physiological, anatomic and mechanism of injury components, but this approach still fails to identify a number of patients with severe injuries and often burdens trauma centres with patients suffering minor injuries. Paramedic judgement has been identified as an alternative method for the triage of trauma patients. This study critically reviewed the literature regarding the ability of paramedics to predict injury severity, and found there is no clear evidence supporting paramedic judgement as an accurate triage method. However, the studies were limited due to significant data losses, variable definitions of major trauma, differences across EMS and trauma care systems, variable paramedic experience levels and incomparable methods of data collection. The role of paramedic judgement in identifying patients with severe blunt anatomic injuries requires further investigation.     

Influence of a new province-wide trauma system on motor vehicle trauma care and mortality

BACKGROUND: Mature trauma systems have evolved to respond to high rates of major injury morbidity and mortality. Characterized by prehospital care, triage, transportation, aggressive resuscitation, surgery, and rehabilitation, trauma systems have been found to improve survival for seriously injured patients. In Nova Scotia, a province-wide trauma system was implemented between 1995 and 1998. This study investigated the influence of the province-wide trauma system on motor vehicle trauma care and mortality in its first 2 years of existence. METHODS: Subjects over the age of 15 years were identified using E-codes pertaining to motor vehicle traffic crashes from population-based hospital claims and vital statistics data. Individuals who were hospitalized or died because of a motor vehicle crash in 1993 through 1994, before trauma system implementation, were compared with those who were hospitalized or died in 1999 through 2000, after the trauma system was implemented. RESULTS: In the 2-year period after trauma system implementation, there was a 21% increase in the number of seriously injured individuals with a primary admission to tertiary care. This increase was both clinically and statistically significant even after adjustment for age, gender, multiple injuries, head injury, municipality of residence, and vital status at discharge (RR, 1.21, 95% CI, 1.05-1.35). There was no evidence that the probability of dying while in hospital significantly changed in the first 2 years after trauma system implementation. INTERPRETATION: These results indicate that individuals seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes in Nova Scotia are more likely to be admitted to tertiary care in the postimplementation period.     

Prehospital triage of trauma patients using the Random Forest computer algorithm

Background

Overtriage not only wastes resources but also displaces the patient from their community and causes delay of treatment for the more seriously injured. This study aimed to validate the Random Forest computer model (RFM) as means of better triaging trauma patients to level 1 trauma centers.

Methods

Adult trauma patients with “medium activation” presenting via helicopter to a level 1 trauma center from May 2007 to May 2009 were included. The “medium activation” trauma patient is alert and hemodynamically stable on scene but has either subnormal vital signs or accumulation of risk factors that may indicate a potentially serious injury. Variables included in the RFM analysis were demographics, mechanism of injury, prehospital fluid, medications, vitals, and disposition. Statistical analysis was performed via the Random Forest algorithm to compare our institutional triage rate to rates determined by the RFM.

Results

A total of 1653 patients were included in this study, of which 496 were used in the testing set of the RFM. In our testing set, 33.8% of patients brought to our level 1 trauma center could have been managed at a level 3 trauma center, and 88% of patients who required a level 1 trauma center were identified correctly. In the testing set, there was an overtriage rate of 66%, whereas using the RFM, we decreased the overtriage rate to 42% (P < 0.001). There was an undertriage rate of 8.3%.The RFM predicted patient disposition with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 42%, negative predictive value of 92%, and positive predictive value of 34%.

Conclusions

Although prospective validation is required, it appears that computer modeling potentially could be used to guide triage decisions, allowing both more accurate triage and more efficient use of the trauma system.     

A Delphi study to identify prehospital and emergency department trauma care modifiers for older adults

Background:Older patients (age ≥ 65 yr) with trauma have increased morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients; this is partly explained by undertriage of older patients with trauma, resulting in lack of transfer to a trauma centre or failure to activate the trauma team. The objective of this study was to identify modifiers to the prehospital and emergency department phases of major trauma care for older adults based on expert consensus.Methods:We conducted a modified Delphi study between May and September 2019 to identify major trauma care modifiers for older adults based on national expert consensus. The panel consisted of 24 trauma care professionals from across Canada from the prehospital and emergency department phases of care. The survey consisted of 16 trauma care modifiers. Three online survey rounds were distributed. Consensus was defined a priori as a disagreement index score less than 1.Results:There was a 100% response rate for all survey rounds. Three new trauma care modifiers were suggested by panellists. The panel achieved consensus agreement for 17 of the 19 trauma care modifiers. The prehospital modifier with the strongest agreement to transfer to a trauma centre was a respiratory rate less than 10 or greater than 20 breaths/min or need for ventilatory support. The emergency department modifier with the strongest level of agreement was obtaining 12-lead electrocardiography following the primary and secondary survey.Conclusion:Using a modified Delphi process, an expert panel agreed on 17 trauma care modifiers for older adults in the prehospital and emergency department settings. These modifiers may improve the delivery of trauma care for older adults and should be considered when developing local and national trauma guidelines.     

Exsanguination in trauma: A review of diagnostics and treatment options

Trauma patients with haemorrhagic shock who only transiently respond or do not respond to fluid therapy and/or the administration of blood products have exsanguinating injuries. Recognising shock due to (exsanguinating) haemorrhage in trauma is about constructing a synthesis of trauma mechanism, injuries, vital signs and the therapeutic response of the patient. The aim of prehospital care of bleeding trauma patients is to deliver the patient to a facility for definitive care within the shortest amount of time by rapid transport and minimise therapy to what is necessary to maintain adequate vital signs. Rapid decisions have to be made using regional trauma triage protocols that have incorporated patient condition, transport times and the level of care than can be performed by the prehospital care providers and the receiving hospitals. The treatment of bleeding patients is aimed at two major goals: stopping the bleeding and restoration of the blood volume. Fluid resuscitation should allow for preservation of vital functions without increasing the risk for further (re)bleeding. To prevent further deterioration and subsequent exsanguinations ‘permissive hypotension’ may be the goal to achieve. Within the hospital, a sound trauma team activation system, including the logistic procedure as well as activation criteria, is essential for a fast and adequate response. After determination of haemorrhagic shock, all efforts have to be directed to stop the bleeding in order to prevent exsanguinations. A simultaneous effort is made to restore blood volume and correct coagulation. Reversal of coagulopathy with pharmacotherapeutic interventions may be a promising concept to limit blood loss after trauma. Abdominal ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage for detection of haemoperitoneum. With the development of sliding-gantry based computer tomography diagnostic systems, rapid evaluation by CT-scanning of the trauma patient is possible during resuscitation. The concept of damage control surgery, the staged approach in treatment of severe trauma, has proven to be of vital importance in the treatment of exsanguinating trauma patients and is adopted worldwide. When performing ‘blind’ transfusion or ‘damage control resuscitation’, a predetermined fixed ratio of blood components may result in the administration of higher plasma and platelets doses and may improve outcome. The role of thromboelastography and thromboelastometry as point-of-care tests for coagulation in massive blood loss is emerging, providing information about actual clot formation and clot stability, shortly (10 min) after the blood sample is taken. Thus, therapy guided by the test results will allow for administration of specific coagulation factors that will be depleted despite administration with fresh frozen plasma during massive transfusion of blood components.     

Prediction of intra-hospital mortality after severe trauma: which pre-hospital score is the most accurate?

PurposeComputing trauma scores in the field allows immediate severity assessment for appropriate triage. Two pre-hospital scores can be useful in this context: the Triage-Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow, Age and arterial Pressure (MGAP) score. The Trauma Revised Injury Severity Score (TRISS), not applicable in the pre-hospital setting, is the reference score to predict in-hospital mortality after severe trauma. The aim of this study was to compare T-RTS, MGAP and TRISS in a cohort of consecutive patients admitted in the Trauma system of the Northern French Alps(TRENAU).Materials and methodsFrom 2009 to 2011, 3260 patients with suspected severe trauma according to the Vittel criteria were included in the TRENAU registry. All data necessary to compute T-RTS, MGAP and TRISS were collected in patients admitted to one level-I, two level-II and ten level-III trauma centers. The primary endpoint was death from any cause during hospital stay. Discriminative power of each score to predict mortality was measured using receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. To test the relevancy of each score for triage, we also tested their sensitivity at usual cut-offs. We expected a sensitivity higher than 95% to limit undertriage.ResultsThe TRISS score showed the highest area under the ROC curve (0.95 [CI 95% 0.94–0.97], p < 0.01). Pre-hospital MGAP score had significantly higher AUC compared to T-RTS (0.93 [CI 95% 0.91–0.95] vs 0.86 [CI 95% 0.83–0.89], respectively, p < 0.01). MGAP score < 23 had a sensitivity of 88% to detect mortality. Sensitivities of T-RTS < 12 and TRISS < 0.91 were 79% and 87%, respectively.Discussion/conclusionPre-hospital calculation of the MGAP score appeared superior to T-RTS score in predicting intra-hospital mortality in a cohort of trauma patients. Although TRISS had the highest AUC, this score can only be available after hospital admission. These findings suggest that the MGAP score could be of interest in the pre-hospital setting to assess patients’ severity. However, its lack of sensitivity indicates that MGAP should not replace the decision scheme to direct the most severe patients to level-I trauma center.     

Triage and mortality in 2875 consecutive trauma patients

Background: Most studies on trauma and trauma systems have been conducted in the United States. We aimed to describe the factors predicting mortality in European trauma patients, with focus on triage. Methods: We prospectively registered all trauma patients in Eastern Denmark over 12 consecutive months. We analysed the flow of trauma patients through the system, the time spent at different locations, and we assessed the risk factors of mortality. Results: We included 2875 trauma patients, of whom 158 (5.5%) died before arrival at the hospital. Most patients (75.3%) were brought to local hospitals and patients primarily (n=82) or secondarily triaged (n=203) to the level I trauma centre were the most severely injured. Secondarily transferred patients spent a median of 150 min in the local hospital before transfer to the level I trauma centre and 48 min on transportation. Severe injury with an injury severity score >15 was seen in 345 patients, of whom 118 stayed at the local hospital. They had a significantly higher mortality than 116 of those secondarily transferred [45/118, 38.1% vs. 11/116, 9.7% (P<0.0001)]. Mortality within 30 days was 4.3% in admitted patients, and significant risk factors of death were violence [odds ratio (OR)=5.72], unconsciousness (OR=4.87), hypotension (OR=4.96), injury severity score >15 (OR=27.42), and age. Conclusions: Around 50% of all trauma deaths occurred at the scene. Increased survival of severely injured patients may be achieved by early transfer to highly specialised care.