ABSTRACT
Objective@#Alcohol consumption is a frequent risk factor for trauma. The shock index is widely used to predict the prognosis of trauma, and alcohol can influence the shock index in several ways. This study investigated the usefulness of the shock index in trauma patients who had ingested alcohol. @*Methods@#This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the association between alcohol consumption and massive transfusions. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the predictive value of the shock index for patients who had ingested alcohol. @*Results@#A total of 5,128 patients were included in the study. The alcohol-positive group had lower systolic blood pressure and higher heart rate; consequently, the shock index in this group was higher. There was no significant difference between the proportion of the alcohol-positive and alcohol-negative groups who underwent massive transfusions and suffered hospital mortality compared to the overall proportion of patients who underwent massive transfusion based on the shock index. In the logistic regression analysis, the alcohol-negative group showed higher odds ratios for massive transfusions compared to the alcohol-positive group. The area under the ROC curve for predicting massive transfusion was 0.831 for the alcohol-positive group and 0.825 for the alcohol-negative group. However, when a cutoff value of 1 was used, the false positive rate was significantly higher in the alcohol-positive group. @*Conclusion@#The shock index is a useful tool for predicting outcomes in patients with trauma. However, in patients who have ingested alcohol, the shock index should be interpreted with caution.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the prognosis of patients who visited the trauma center directly (direct visit group) with those transferred from the non-trauma center (transferred group). METHODS: The patients, who were 18 or older with Injury Severity Score of 15 or more in the trauma center at Busan, were studied from October 2015 to October 2016. To compare the treatment time between the direct visit and transferred group, first treatment time, final treatment time, and time to visit the trauma center were examined. To compare the prognosis, this study compared the 48-hour, 7-day, and in-hospital mortality rate as well as the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and total hospital stay. To analyze the factors affecting the outcome of transferred group, the physician's level and procedures that had been performed at the non-trauma center were examined. RESULTS: The mortality was similar in the direct visit and transferred group (48-hour 7.6% vs. 4.6%, P=0.111; 7-day 11.1% vs. 7.2%, P=0.89; and in-hospital 14.6% vs. 11.3%, P=0.214). The length of ICU and total hospital stay were similar in the two groups. The mortality was higher in the patients in the transferred group when using intubation, transfusion, and pressure intensifier. The intubated patients showed higher mortality according to logistic regression. CONCLUSION: The mortality, length of ICU, and hospital stay were similar but the time to visit the trauma center and the final treatment time were longer in transferred group. Stabilizing the patient at the near non-trauma center may be more helpful for some patients.