Outcomes of open cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pulseless blunt chest trauma: A nationwide cohort study.

Yau-Ren Chang, Hu-Lin Christina Wang, Heng-Fu Lin, Ting-An Hsu, Chih-Yuan Fu, Faran Bokhari
{"title":"Outcomes of open cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pulseless blunt chest trauma: A nationwide cohort study.","authors":"Yau-Ren Chang, Hu-Lin Christina Wang, Heng-Fu Lin, Ting-An Hsu, Chih-Yuan Fu, Faran Bokhari","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2025.112447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Open cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCPR) is a critical treatment for severe torso trauma. While OCPR has shown survival benefits for patients with penetrating traumatic cardiac arrest, its efficacy in blunt trauma patients remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study analyzed pulseless blunt chest trauma patients from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) in the United States during 2014-2015. The study excluded patients under 18 years of age, those without initial signs of life, and those with burns, penetrating trauma, unknown mechanisms, incomplete records, severe head injuries, or transportation times over 60 min. The primary outcome was Emergency Department (ED) survival, and the secondary outcome was overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1358 pulseless blunt chest trauma patients, 420 met the inclusion criteria, and 15.5 % (65/420) received OCPR. ED survival was significantly greater in the OCPR group (81.5 % [53/65] vs. 46.8 % [166/355], p < 0.001), whereas overall survival was not significantly different between the groups (9.2 % [6/65] vs. 12.4 % [44/355], p = 0.626). A subset analysis of patients with cardiac injuries showed better ED survival (81.3 % [13/16] vs. 40.5 % [17/42], p = 0.012) and a trend of better overall survival (25.0 % [4/16] vs. 3.4 % [2/42], p = 0.086) for those who underwent OCPR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OCPR does not improve overall survival in all pulseless blunt chest trauma patients, but it offers significant benefits for those with cardiac injuries. Further research is needed to refine management strategies for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":94042,"journal":{"name":"Injury","volume":" ","pages":"112447"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2025.112447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Open cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCPR) is a critical treatment for severe torso trauma. While OCPR has shown survival benefits for patients with penetrating traumatic cardiac arrest, its efficacy in blunt trauma patients remains unclear.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed pulseless blunt chest trauma patients from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) in the United States during 2014-2015. The study excluded patients under 18 years of age, those without initial signs of life, and those with burns, penetrating trauma, unknown mechanisms, incomplete records, severe head injuries, or transportation times over 60 min. The primary outcome was Emergency Department (ED) survival, and the secondary outcome was overall survival.

Results: Out of 1358 pulseless blunt chest trauma patients, 420 met the inclusion criteria, and 15.5 % (65/420) received OCPR. ED survival was significantly greater in the OCPR group (81.5 % [53/65] vs. 46.8 % [166/355], p < 0.001), whereas overall survival was not significantly different between the groups (9.2 % [6/65] vs. 12.4 % [44/355], p = 0.626). A subset analysis of patients with cardiac injuries showed better ED survival (81.3 % [13/16] vs. 40.5 % [17/42], p = 0.012) and a trend of better overall survival (25.0 % [4/16] vs. 3.4 % [2/42], p = 0.086) for those who underwent OCPR.

Conclusion: OCPR does not improve overall survival in all pulseless blunt chest trauma patients, but it offers significant benefits for those with cardiac injuries. Further research is needed to refine management strategies for these patients.

无脉钝性胸外伤开放心肺复苏的结果:一项全国性队列研究。
简介:开放式心肺复苏(OCPR)是严重躯干创伤的关键治疗方法。虽然OCPR对穿透性外伤性心脏骤停患者的生存有好处,但其对钝性创伤患者的疗效仍不清楚。材料和方法:本回顾性队列研究分析了2014-2015年来自美国国家创伤数据库(NTDB)的无脉钝性胸外伤患者。该研究排除了年龄在18岁以下、无初始生命体征、有烧伤、穿透性创伤、机制未知、记录不完整、严重头部损伤或运输时间超过60分钟的患者。主要结局是急诊科(ED)生存率,次要结局是总生存率。结果:1358例无脉钝性胸外伤患者中,420例符合纳入标准,15.5%(65/420)接受了OCPR治疗。OCPR组ED生存率显著高于对照组(81.5%[53/65]比46.8% [166/355],p < 0.001),而两组总生存率无显著差异(9.2%[6/65]比12.4% [44/355],p = 0.626)。心脏损伤患者的亚组分析显示,接受OCPR的患者ED生存率更高(81.3%[13/16]对40.5% [17/42],p = 0.012),总生存率有提高的趋势(25.0%[4/16]对3.4% [2/42],p = 0.086)。结论:OCPR不能提高所有无脉钝性胸外伤患者的总生存率,但对心脏损伤患者有显著的益处。需要进一步的研究来完善这些患者的管理策略。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信