Tag Archives: survival

Trauma Center Level And Outcome

All designating/verifying agencies differentiate between highest level trauma centers (regional resource, or Level I in the US) and an intermediate level center (Level II in the US). For most, the differences are not huge on paper. Level I’s usually require a significant education and research component, as well as continuously available specialists in all disciplines. There are usually minimum volume and/or injury severity requirements as well.

Several previously published reports using NTDB data have shown that mortality is decreased in trauma patients taken to Level I centers compared to Level II. A report out this month confirms this using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma System Foundation database. The authors noted the following:

  • Patients admitted to Level I centers were younger and more often male than those admitted to Level II
  • Level I’s admitted more patients with gunshots and fewer with same level falls
  • Overall, mortality of patients admitted to Level I centers was 15% lower than in those admitted to a Level II
  • This survival advantage was principally in the most severely injured patients (20% in patients with ISS >= 25). In lower ISS patients, there was no apparent survival advantage.
  • Complication rates were 37% higher in Level I centers!

Bottom line: What does all this actually mean? First, this applies in the US only. Next, this study shows an association, but can’t assign a cause for the better survival. But it is consistent now across a number of studies. The US criteria for Level I centers are fairly stringent. Level II criteria are less so. Some Level II’s function like a Level I, but others are barely better than a Level III. It’s time to figure out what those less tangible differences are and implement them as best practices for all centers, if possible. And, oh yes, we better figure out why the major complication rate in Level I’s is so ridiculously high. It does no good to survive if the patient sustains significant functional limitations due to complications!

Reference: Impact of Trauma Center Designation on Outcomes: Is There a Difference Between Level I and Level II Trauma Centers? Journal Amer Coll Surgeons 215(3):372-378, 2012.

Helicopter Transport and Civilian Trauma

Military helicopter experience led to widespread adoption in the US for civilian trauma beginning in the 1970s. This has had the significant side effect of extending the reach of trauma centers to a significant percentage of the US population. But because of safety considerations and concerns about appropriate use, the overall benefit continues to be questioned.

Most existing studies have been small, single institution projects. Researchers at the University of Rochester designed a very large study using the National Trauma Databank. They identified over 250,000 patients transported from the injury scene, 16% of whom were transported by ‘copter, the remainder by ground. 

Patients transported by air were more severely injured and were more likely to have a severe head injury or abnormal vital signs. They also had longer hospital and ICU stays, and were more likely to require a ventilator or emergency surgery.

Despite the fact that response and scene times were longer for helicopter transports, air transport was a predictor of survival when injury severity was taken into consideration. This type of study can’t tell why survival is better, but possibilities include distance traveled and a higher level of care provided by air EMS personnel. Aeromedical EMS personnel are more likely to trained to perform advanced techniques such as intubation, crich, and transfusion, and generally have more experience with trauma patients.

Use of this scarce resource for trauma patient transport remains expensive, and as recent accident statistics imply, somewhat dangerous. Trauma centers and systems need to develop evidence-based guidelines that use helicopters intelligently for benefit of the patient, not the aeromedical service owners.

Reference: Helicopters and the civilian trauma system: national utilization patterns demonstrate improved outcomes after trauma injury. J Trauma 69(5):1030-6, 2010.