Functional Outcomes at 6 and 12 Months Post-Injury in a Trauma Centre Population with Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Injuries.

This study aims to evaluate the global functional outcomes after moderate-to-severe traumatic injury at 6 and 12 months and to examine the sociodemographic and injury-related factors that predict these outcomes. A prospective cohort study was conducted in which trauma patients of all ages with a New Injury Severity Score > 9 who were discharged alive from two regional trauma centres in Norway over a one-year period (2020) were included. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score was used to analyse the functional outcomes. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the predictors of the GOSE score. Follow-up assessments were obtained from approximately 85% of the 601 included patients at both time points. The mean (SD) GOSE score was 6.1 (1.6) at 6 months and 6.4 (1.6) at 12 months, which corresponds to an upper-moderate disability. One-half of the patients had a persistent disability at 12 months post-injury. The statistically significant predictors of a low GOSE score at both time points were more pre-injury comorbidity, a higher number of injuries, and higher estimated rehabilitation needs, whereas a thorax injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥ 3 predicted higher GOSE scores. A high Glasgow Coma Scale score at admission predicted a higher GOSE score at 6 months. This study strengthens the evidence base for the functional outcomes and predictors in this population.

Factors associated with discharge destination from acute care after moderate-to-severe traumatic injuries in Norway: a prospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that the trauma population has needs for rehabilitation services that are best provided in a continuous and coordinated way. The discharge destination after acute care is the second step to ensuring quality of care. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the factors associated with the discharge destination for the overall trauma population. This paper aims to identify sociodemographic, geographical, and injury-related factors associated with discharge destination following acute care at trauma centers for patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic injuries. METHODS: A multicenter, population-based, prospective study was conducted with patients of all ages with traumatic injury [New Injury Severity Score (NISS) > 9] admitted within 72 h after the injury to regional trauma centers in southeastern and northern Norway over a 1-year period (2020). RESULTS: In total, 601 patients were included; a majority (76%) sustained severe injuries, and 22% were discharged directly to specialized rehabilitation. Children were primarily discharged home, and most of the patients ≥ 65 years to their local hospital. Depending on the centrality of their residence [Norwegian Centrality Index (NCI) 1-6, where 1 is most central], we found that patients residing in NCI 3-4 and 5-6 areas sustained more severe injuries than patients residing in NCI 1-2 areas. An increase in the NISS, number of injuries, or a spinal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3 was associated with discharge to local hospitals and specialized rehabilitation than to home. Patients with an AIS ≥ 3 head injury (RRR 6.1, 95% Confidence interval 2.80-13.38) were significantly more likely to be discharged to specialized rehabilitation than patients with a less severe head injury. Age < 18 years was negatively associated with discharge to a local hospital, while NCI 3-4, preinjury comorbidity, and increased severity of injuries in the lower extremities were positively associated. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of the patients sustained severe traumatic injury, and 22% were discharged directly to specialized rehabilitation. Age, centrality of the residence, preinjury comorbidity, injury severity, length of hospital stay, and the number and specific types of injuries were factors that had the greatest influence on discharge destination.

Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in children 15 years and younger in South-Eastern Norway in 2015-16. Implications for prevention and follow-up needs.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to describe the volume, severity, and injury mechanism of all hospital-admitted pediatric traumatic brain injury (pTBI) at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), emphasizing consequences for prevention and factors indicating a need for follow-up programs. METHOD: Data were extracted from the OUH Trauma registry on 176 children, 0-15 years old, admitted to OUH in 2015 and 2016 with a pTBI diagnosis. The dataset contains demographic data, injury mechanism, type, and severity (Glasgow coma scale, GCS; abbreviated injury scale, AIS; injury severity score, ISS), ICD-10 diagnosis codes, level of treatment, and destination of discharge. RESULTS: 79.5% had mild, 9% moderate, and 11.4% severe TBI. The incidence of hospital-treated pTBI in Oslo was 29 per 100,000 per year. The boy: girl ratio was 1.9:1, but in the young teenage group (14-15 years), the ratio was 1:1. Intracranial injury (ICI) identified on CT/MRI was associated with extended hospital stays, with a median of 6 days compared to 1 day for patients without ICI. 27% of the patients assessed as mild TBI at admission had ICI. Children below eight years of age had a higher incidence of moderate and severe ICI from trauma (53% v.s. 28% in children ≥ eight years). CONCLUSION: The injury characteristics of hospital-treated pTBI are in line with other European countries, but we find the boy-girl ratio different as young teenage girls seem to be catching up with the boys. ICI and length of stay should be considered when deciding which patients need follow-up and rehabilitation.

Comparison of risk-adjusted survival in two Scandinavian Level-I trauma centres.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of trauma-system performance is important for improving the care of injured patients. The aim of the study was to compare risk-adjusted survival in two Scandinavian Level-I trauma centres. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective study of prospectively-collected trauma registry data for patients >14 years from Karolinska University Hospital - Solna (KUH), Sweden, and Oslo University Hospital - Ullevål (OUH), Norway, from 2009-2011. Probability of survival (Ps) was calculated according to the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method. Risk-adjusted survival per patient was calculated by assigning every patient a value corresponding to gained or lost fractional life: Each survivor contributed a reward of 1-Ps and each death a penalty of -Ps. The sum of penalties and rewards, corresponding to the difference between expected and actual mortality, was compared between the centres. We present the data as excess survivors per 100 trauma patients. RESULTS: There were 4485 admissions at KUH and 3591 at OUH. The proportion of severely injured patients was higher at OUH compared with KUH (Injury Severity Score [ISS] >15: 33.9 % vs. 21.1 %, p <0.001). OUH had a larger proportion of patients >65 years (16.0 % vs. 13.4 %, p <0.001) and greater comorbidity (ASA-PS ≥3: 14.6 % vs. 6.9 %, p <0.001) compared with KUH. The frequency of helicopter transport and presence of prehospital physicians was higher at OUH compared with KUH (27.6 % vs. 15.5 % and 30.5 % vs. 3.7 %, both p <0.001). Secondary admissions were 5.2-fold more common at OUH compared with KUH (p <0.001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality for severely injured patients (ISS >15). Risk-adjusted survival rate was higher at OUH than at KUH for primary (0.59 vs. 0.51) but lower for secondary (1.41 vs. 2.85) admissions (both p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Adjustments for age as a continuous variable and comorbidity should be made when comparing risk-adjusted survival between hospitals, but this is not possible with the TRISS model. A survival prediction model that takes this into account may be a better choice for Scandinavian trauma populations. The current study could not rule out the influence of the system differences between the centres on risk-adjusted survival.

Severe traumatic brain injury in Norway: impact of age on outcome.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of age on mortality and 3-month outcome in a Norwegian cohort of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Norwegian residents ≥ 16 years of age who were admitted with a severe TBI to the country's 4 major trauma centres in 2009 and 2010 were included, as were adults (16- 64 years) and elderly patients (≥ 65 years). RESULTS: Half of the adult subjects and 84% of the elderly subjects were injured by falls. One-third of the adults and half of the elderly subjects were admitted to a local hospital before being transported to a regional trauma hospital. Subdural haematomas were more frequent in the elderly subjects. One-quarter of adults and two-thirds of the elderly subjects died within 3 months. At 3 months, 41% of the adult survivors were still in-patients, mainly in rehabilitation units (92%). Of the surviving elderly subjects, 14% were in-patients and none were in rehabilitation units. There was no difference in functional level for survivors at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Old age is associated with fall-induced severe TBI and high mortality rates. Less intensive treatment strategies were applied to elderly patients in the present study despite high rates of haemorrhage. Few surviving elderly patients received rehabilitation at 3 months post-injury.

Evaluation of TEG(®) and RoTEM(®) inter-changeability in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Massive haemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable deaths in trauma. Traumatic coagulopathy is frequently present early after trauma, and is associated with increased mortality. A number of recent trials suggest that viscoelastic haemostatic assays (VHA), such as thromboelastography and thromboelastometry, are useful tools in guiding transfusion. Treatment algorithms exist for the use of VHAs but are not validated in traumatic haemorrhage. In this study we examined the inter-changeability of two commonly used VHAs, TEG(®) and RoTEM(®). METHODS: A total of 184 trauma patients over the age of 18, requiring full trauma team activation, were included at three different hospitals in three different countries (Copenhagen, Denmark, San Francisco, CA, USA and Oslo, Norway). Blood samples were drawn immediately upon arrival, and TEG(®) and RoTEM(®) analyzed simultaneously. Correlations were calculated using. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Agreement was evaluated by Bland-Altman plots and calculation of limits of agreement. RESULTS: The mean ISS in the total population was 17, and the mortality was 16.5%. Mean base excess was -2.8 (SD: 4.2). The correlation coefficient for corresponding values for the two devices was 0.24 for the R-time vs CT in all centres combined. For the K-time vs CFT the correlation was 0.48, for the α-angleTEG vs α-angleRoTEM 0.44, and for MA vs MCF 0.76. Limits of agreement exceeded the preset clinically acceptable deviation of 10% for all variables in all centres except for MA/MCF in one centre (Copenhagen). Generally, correlation coefficients were lower and agreement poorer in the one centre (Oslo) where measurements were performed bedside by clinicians. CONCLUSION: Inter-changeability between TEG(®) and RoTEM(®) is limited in the trauma setting. Agreement seems poorer when clinicians operate the devices. Development and validation of separate treatment algorithms for the two devices is required.

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.

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 rater's career, but no significant relationship between the rater-against-reference ISS and NISS ICC values and total number of cases coded during the rater's 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.

Differences and discrepancies between 2005 and 2008 Abbreviated Injury Scale versions - time to standardise.

The aim of this letter is to facilitate the standardisation of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codesets used to code injuries in trauma registries. We have compiled a definitive list of the changes which have been implemented between the AIS 2005 and Update 2008 versions. While the AIS 2008 codeset appears to have remained consistent since its release, we have identified discrepancies between the codesets in copies of AIS 2005 dictionaries. As a result, we recommend that use of the AIS 2005 should be discontinued in favour of the Update 2008 version.

Ultrasound performed by radiologists-confirming the truth about FAST in trauma.

BACKGROUND: For hemodynamically stable patients with suspected abdominal injuries, the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic scans remains unmatched. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is useful in trauma evaluation to identify intraabdominal fluid early in the unstable patient. In skilled hands, sensitivity is shown to be close to 100%. However, some recent studies have questioned its sensitivity in subgroups at risk of bleeding. In most studies, hemodynamic markers of instability have been limited to hypotension. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of initial FAST for detection of hemoperitoneum in the potentially unstable patient as judged by objective hemodynamic parameters available early during resuscitation. METHODS: Prospective observational study at a major European trauma center. FAST was performed in trauma patients by the trauma team radiologist. The study population consisted of the subgroup deemed potentially unstable on arrival as defined by systolic blood pressure < or =90 mm Hg, pulse rate > or =120, or base deficit > or =8. Results were compared with one of the following reference standards: computed tomographic scan, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, exploratory laparotomy, or observation. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients constituted the study group. There were 75 true-negative, 10 false-negative, 16 true-positive, and 3 false-positive FAST results. Sensitivity and specificity were 62% and 96%, positive and negative predictive values 84% and 89%, respectively, and overall accuracy was 88%. CONCLUSION: A negative initial FAST in hemodynamically unstable patients, even in the hands of radiologists, cannot reliably exclude intraabdominal bleeding. These patients should undergo additional diagnostic tests to exclude intraperitoneal hemorrhage.

Scoring of anatomic injury after trauma: AIS 98 versus AIS 90--do the changes affect overall severity assessment?

BACKGROUND: Although several changes were implemented in the 1998 update of the abbreviated injury scale (AIS 98) versus the previous AIS 90, both are still used worldwide for coding of anatomic injury in trauma. This could possibly invalidate comparisons between systems using different AIS versions. Our aim was to evaluate whether the use of different coding dictionaries affected estimation of Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and probability of survival (Ps) according to TRISS in a hospital-based trauma registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective study including 1654 patients from Ulleval University Hospital, a Norwegian trauma referral centre, patients were coded according to both AIS 98 and AIS 90. Agreement between the classifications of ISS, NISS and Ps according to TRISS methodology was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% CI. RESULTS: ISS changed for 378 of 1654 patients analysed (22.9%). One hundred and forty seven (8.9%) were coded differently due to different injury descriptions and 369 patients (22.3%) had a change in ISS value in one or more regions due to the different scoring algorithm for skin injuries introduced in AIS 98. This gave a minimal change in mean ISS (14.74 versus 14.54). An ICC value of 0.997 (95% CI 0.9968-0.9974) for ISS indicates excellent agreement between the scoring systems. There were no significant changes in NISS and Ps. CONCLUSIONS: There was excellent agreement for the overall population between ISS, NISS and Ps values obtained using AIS 90 and AIS 98 for injury coding. Injury descriptions for hypothermia were re-introduced in the recently published AIS 2005. We support this change as coding differences due to hypothermia were encountered in 4.3% of patients in the present study.