Characteristics of pediatric trauma transfers to a level i trauma center: implications for developing a regionalized pediatric trauma system in california.

BACKGROUND: since California lacks a statewide trauma system, there are no uniform interfacility pediatric trauma transfer guidelines across local emergency medical services (EMS) agencies in California. This may result in delays in obtaining optimal care for injured children. OBJECTIVES: this study sought to understand patterns of pediatric trauma patient transfers to the study trauma center as a first step in assessing the quality and efficiency of pediatric transfer within the current trauma system model. Outcome measures included clinical and demographic characteristics, distances traveled, and centers bypassed. The hypothesis was that transferred patients would be more severely injured than directly admitted patients, primary catchment transfers would be few, and out-of-catchment transfers would come from hospitals in close geographic proximity to the study center. METHODS: this was a retrospective observational analysis of trauma patients ≤ 18 years of age in the institutional trauma database (2000-2007). All patients with a trauma International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) code and trauma mechanism who were identified as a trauma patient by EMS or emergency physicians were recorded in the trauma database, including those patients who were discharged home. Trauma patients brought directly to the emergency department (ED) and patients transferred from other facilities to the center were compared. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to calculate the straight-line distances from the referring hospitals to the study center and to all closer centers potentially capable of accepting interfacility pediatric trauma transfers. RESULTS: of 2,798 total subjects, 16.2% were transferred from other facilities within California; 69.8% of transfers were from the catchment area, with 23.0% transferred from facilities ≤ 10 miles from the center. This transfer pattern was positively associated with private insurance (risk ratio [RR] = 2.05; p < 0.001) and negatively associated with age 15-18 years (RR = 0.23; p = 0.01) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 18 (RR = 0.26; p < 0.01). The out-of-catchment transfers accounted for 30.2% of the patients, and 75.9% of these noncatchment transfers were in closer proximity to another facility potentially capable of accepting pediatric interfacility transfers. The overall median straight-line distance from noncatchment referring hospitals to the study center was 61.2 miles (IQR = 19.0-136.4), compared to 33.6 miles (IQR = 13.9-61.5) to the closest center. Transfer patients were more severely injured than directly admitted patients (p < 0.001). Out-of-catchment transfers were older than catchment patients (p < 0.001); ISS > 18 (RR = 2.06; p < 0.001) and age 15-18 (RR = 1.28; p < 0.001) were predictive of out-of-catchment patients bypassing other pediatric-capable centers. Finally, 23.7% of pediatric trauma transfer requests to the study institution were denied due to lack of bed capacity. CONCLUSIONS: from the perspective an adult Level I trauma center with a certified pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), delays in definitive pediatric trauma care appear to be present secondary to initial transport to nontrauma community hospitals within close proximity of a trauma hospital, long transfer distances to accepting facilities, and lack of capacity at the study center. Given the absence of uniform trauma triage and transfer guidelines across state EMS systems, there appears to be a role for quality monitoring and improvement of the current interfacility pediatric trauma transfer system, including defined triage, transfer, and data collection protocols.

Postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing elective revascularization for critical limb ischemia and intermittent claudication: a subanalysis of the Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction rate, and long-term survival of patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) compared with those with intermittent claudication (IC) within a cohort selected for significant coronary artery disease, a secondary analysis was conducted of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) before peripheral vascular surgery. This multicenter trial was sponsored by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS: Of the 510 patients enrolled in the CARP trial and randomized to coronary revascularization or no revascularization before elective vascular surgery, 143 had CLI and 164 had IC as an indication for lower limb revascularization; >95% of each group were men. The presence of coronary artery disease was determined by cardiac catheterization. Eligible patients had at least one treatable coronary lesion of > or =70%. Those with significant left main disease, ejection fraction of <20%, and aortic stenosis were excluded. Patients were randomized to coronary artery disease revascularization or no revascularization before vascular surgery and followed for mortality and morbidity perioperatively and for a median of 2.7 years postoperatively. Medical treatment of coronary artery disease was pursued aggressively. RESULTS: Patients with IC had a longer time from randomization to vascular surgery (p = .001) and more abdominal operations (p < .001). Patients with CLI had more urgent operations (p = .006), reoperations (p < .001), and limb loss (p = .008) as well as longer hospital stays (p < .001). The IC group had more perioperative myocardial infarctions (CLI, 8.4%; IC, 17.1%; p = .024), although perioperative mortality was similar (CLI, 3.5%; IC, 1.8%; p = .360). In follow-up, the IC group also had numerically more myocardial infarctions (CLI, 16.8%; IC, 25%; p = .079), but mortality was not different (CLI, 21%; IC, 22%; p = .825). Coronary artery revascularization did not lower perioperative or long-term mortality in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that patients with significant coronary artery disease and either CLI or IC can undergo vascular surgery with low mortality and morbidity, and these results are not improved by coronary artery revascularization before vascular surgery. Furthermore, when selected for the presence of symptomatically stable, severe coronary artery disease, there is no difference in long-term survival between patients with CLI and IC. Finally, the better-than-predicted outcomes for these patients with advanced systemic atherosclerosis may be due to aggressive medical management with beta-blockers, statins, and acetylsalicylic acid.