Predicting the critical administration threshold in bleeding trauma patients.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00776-3
Kevin Durr, Krishan Yadav, Michael Ho, Jacinthe Lampron, Alexandre Tran, Doran Drew, Andrew Petrosoniak, Christian Vaillancourt, Marie-Joe Nemnom, Kasim Abdulaziz, Jeffrey J Perry
{"title":"Predicting the critical administration threshold in bleeding trauma patients.","authors":"Kevin Durr, Krishan Yadav, Michael Ho, Jacinthe Lampron, Alexandre Tran, Doran Drew, Andrew Petrosoniak, Christian Vaillancourt, Marie-Joe Nemnom, Kasim Abdulaziz, Jeffrey J Perry","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00776-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Delays in promptly recognizing and appropriately managing hemorrhagic injuries contribute to preventable trauma related deaths nationwide. We sought to identify patient variables available at the time of emergency department arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We conducted a trauma registry review from September 2016 to March 2020 of trauma team activations at The Ottawa Hospital, a Level 1 Trauma Center. Our primary outcome was the frequency of meeting the critical administration threshold. Secondary outcomes included time to critical administration threshold, 24-h all-cause mortality, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors independently associated with meeting the critical administration threshold.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We assessed 762 patients, of which 78 (10.2%) met the critical administration threshold. The median time to critical administration threshold was 28.9 min. Mortality at 24 h occurred in 58 (7.6%) patients. Four variables available upon patient arrival predicted the critical administration threshold, including systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg (OR 6.6; 95% CI 3.7-12.0), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8 (OR 5.9; 95% CI 3.2-10.6), heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.4-8.1), and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified four clinical variables readily available to physicians upon patient arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold: systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8, heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute, and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min. Patients presenting with any of these clinical parameters should prompt physicians to consider ordering blood products immediately.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":"790-796"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00776-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Delays in promptly recognizing and appropriately managing hemorrhagic injuries contribute to preventable trauma related deaths nationwide. We sought to identify patient variables available at the time of emergency department arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold.

Methodology: We conducted a trauma registry review from September 2016 to March 2020 of trauma team activations at The Ottawa Hospital, a Level 1 Trauma Center. Our primary outcome was the frequency of meeting the critical administration threshold. Secondary outcomes included time to critical administration threshold, 24-h all-cause mortality, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors independently associated with meeting the critical administration threshold.

Results: We assessed 762 patients, of which 78 (10.2%) met the critical administration threshold. The median time to critical administration threshold was 28.9 min. Mortality at 24 h occurred in 58 (7.6%) patients. Four variables available upon patient arrival predicted the critical administration threshold, including systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg (OR 6.6; 95% CI 3.7-12.0), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8 (OR 5.9; 95% CI 3.2-10.6), heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.4-8.1), and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.0).

Conclusion: We identified four clinical variables readily available to physicians upon patient arrival associated with meeting the critical administration threshold: systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8, heart rate ≥ 100 beats/minute, and respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths/min. Patients presenting with any of these clinical parameters should prompt physicians to consider ordering blood products immediately.

预测创伤出血患者的临界给药阈值。
导言:在全国范围内,延误及时识别和适当处理出血性损伤是造成可预防的创伤相关死亡的原因之一。我们试图确定患者在到达急诊科时与达到关键管理阈值相关的变量:我们从 2016 年 9 月到 2020 年 3 月对一级创伤中心渥太华医院的创伤团队启动情况进行了创伤登记审查。我们的主要结果是达到临界给药阈值的频率。次要结果包括达到危重给药阈值的时间、24 小时全因死亡率和 30 天全因死亡率。多变量逻辑回归确定了与达到临界给药阈值独立相关的因素:我们对 762 名患者进行了评估,其中 78 人(10.2%)达到了临界给药阈值。达到临界给药阈值的中位时间为 28.9 分钟。58 名患者(7.6%)在 24 小时内死亡。患者到达时可获得的四个变量可预测临界给药阈值,包括收缩压≤90 mmHg(OR 6.6;95% CI 3.7-12.0)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表≤8(OR 5.9;95% CI 3.2-10.6)、心率≥100次/分(OR 4.4;95% CI 2.4-8.1)和呼吸频率≥20次/分(OR 2.2;95% CI 1.2-4.0):我们确定了四个临床变量,这些变量在患者到达时可随时提供给医生,并与达到临界管理阈值相关:收缩压≤90 mmHg、格拉斯哥昏迷量表≤8、心率≥100次/分钟、呼吸频率≥20次/分钟。出现上述任何临床参数的患者都应促使医生考虑立即订购血液制品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信