Injury mechanism, risk factors and outcomes associated with blunt cardiac injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Q4 Medicine
Yongjing Jiang, Gaoliang Zhou, Jun Feng, Likun Ma, Jianyuan Pan
{"title":"Injury mechanism, risk factors and outcomes associated with blunt cardiac injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Yongjing Jiang, Gaoliang Zhou, Jun Feng, Likun Ma, Jianyuan Pan","doi":"10.1097/CP9.0000000000000044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and purpose: Risk factors that could be used to assess early and further improve the positive predictive value of blunt cardiac injury (BCI) are still inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively analyze the injury mechanism, risk factors, and outcomes associated with BCI in trauma patients. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to gather data on trauma patients with blunt cardiac injury. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies until 20th November 2021. A pooled meta-analysis of injury mechanisms, risk factors, and outcomes concerning BCI was conducted. Results: We screened 256 records from which 11 studies published from 2000 to 2019 reporting 68,039 patients with trauma were included. Motor vehicle crash was the main injury mechanism, accounting for 65.2% of the attributed mechanisms for BCI [pool proportion = 0.652 (0.595–0.709)]. The pooled relative risks (RRs) revealed that patients with sternal fracture, shock on arrival, and history of cardiac disease were associated with increased risk of BCI (for sternal fracture: RR = 7.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.99–13.05]; for the shock on arrival: RR = 2.45, 95% CI = 2.12–2.84; for the history of cardiac disease: RR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.11–3.16). A significant difference was observed in the length of stay between the BCI group compared to the no BCI group, 11.68 (95% CI = 8.79–14.58 days) vs. 20.46 (95% CI = 16.78–24.14 days). The risk of mortality was significantly higher in trauma patients with BCI as compared to those without BCI (RR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.53–1.90). Conclusions: BCI was associated with increased mortality in our study. Patients also tended towards a longer length of stay. In addition to electrocardiogram and TnI, we recommend screening for BCI when trauma patients are in the presence of sternal fracture, shock, and a history of cardiac disease.","PeriodicalId":52908,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology Plus","volume":"8 1","pages":"53 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CP9.0000000000000044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Risk factors that could be used to assess early and further improve the positive predictive value of blunt cardiac injury (BCI) are still inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively analyze the injury mechanism, risk factors, and outcomes associated with BCI in trauma patients. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to gather data on trauma patients with blunt cardiac injury. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies until 20th November 2021. A pooled meta-analysis of injury mechanisms, risk factors, and outcomes concerning BCI was conducted. Results: We screened 256 records from which 11 studies published from 2000 to 2019 reporting 68,039 patients with trauma were included. Motor vehicle crash was the main injury mechanism, accounting for 65.2% of the attributed mechanisms for BCI [pool proportion = 0.652 (0.595–0.709)]. The pooled relative risks (RRs) revealed that patients with sternal fracture, shock on arrival, and history of cardiac disease were associated with increased risk of BCI (for sternal fracture: RR = 7.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.99–13.05]; for the shock on arrival: RR = 2.45, 95% CI = 2.12–2.84; for the history of cardiac disease: RR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.11–3.16). A significant difference was observed in the length of stay between the BCI group compared to the no BCI group, 11.68 (95% CI = 8.79–14.58 days) vs. 20.46 (95% CI = 16.78–24.14 days). The risk of mortality was significantly higher in trauma patients with BCI as compared to those without BCI (RR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.53–1.90). Conclusions: BCI was associated with increased mortality in our study. Patients also tended towards a longer length of stay. In addition to electrocardiogram and TnI, we recommend screening for BCI when trauma patients are in the presence of sternal fracture, shock, and a history of cardiac disease.
与钝性心脏损伤相关的损伤机制、危险因素和结果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景和目的:可用于早期评估并进一步提高钝性心脏损伤(BCI)阳性预测价值的风险因素尚不确定。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以定量分析创伤患者脑机接口的损伤机制、危险因素和结果。方法:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在收集外伤性心脏钝性损伤患者的数据。PubMed、Web of Science和EMBASE数据库在2021年11月20日之前一直在搜索研究。对脑机接口损伤机制、危险因素和结果进行了汇总荟萃分析。结果:我们筛选了256份记录,其中包括2000年至2019年发表的11项研究,报告了68039名创伤患者。机动车碰撞是主要的损伤机制,占脑机接口归因机制的65.2%[综合比例=0.652(0.595–0.709)]。综合相对风险(RR)显示,胸骨骨折、到达时休克、,心脏病史与脑机接口风险增加相关(胸骨骨折:RR=7.21[95%置信区间(CI)=3.99-13.05];对于到达时的冲击:RR=2.45,95%CI=2.12-2.84;心脏病史:RR=1.87,95%CI=1.11–3.16)。与无脑机接口组相比,脑机接口治疗组的住院时间有显著差异,分别为11.68(95%CI=8.79–14.58天)和20.46(95%CI=16.78–24.14天)。有脑机接口的创伤患者的死亡率明显高于无脑机接口患者(RR=1.70,95%CI=1.53-1.90)。结论:在我们的研究中,脑机接口与死亡率增加有关。患者也倾向于延长住院时间。除了心电图和TnI外,当创伤患者存在胸骨骨折、休克和心脏病史时,我们建议对脑机接口进行筛查。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
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