我们应该重新定义老年创伤的年龄吗?来自美国外科医师学会创伤质量改进项目数据库的30天死亡率风险分析。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Ahmed Noureldin, Mary Matecki, Renxi Li, Jayati Atahar, Sean M Lee, Susan Kartiko
{"title":"我们应该重新定义老年创伤的年龄吗?来自美国外科医师学会创伤质量改进项目数据库的30天死亡率风险分析。","authors":"Ahmed Noureldin, Mary Matecki, Renxi Li, Jayati Atahar, Sean M Lee, Susan Kartiko","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Older injured patients have higher mortality compared with their younger counterparts, and their outcomes worsen with each decade of life. However, the exact age to classify a patient as \"geriatric\" is not universally defined. Identifying an evidence-based age cutoff for \"geriatric\" trauma activations is important to preserve hospital and human resources by not superfluously including younger patients but also not depriving older high-risk patients of resources needed to achieve their best recovery. The aim for our study is to define changes in mortality by age to determine the age at which patients are at risk of worse outcomes and should be classified as \"geriatric.\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective study of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We obtained patients who had ground level fall (GLF) and sampling of patients with all trauma mechanism between the age of 17 and 89 years. Binary segmentation change-point analysis was used to calculate the optimized number and position of change points in mean unadjusted mortality by age for both GLF and all trauma groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,360,160 GLF patients from the 2013-2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included. The random sample of all-trauma patients included 1,332,072 patients. Binary segmentation change-point analysis indicated that change point in mean unadjusted mortality occurs at 72 years of age for all trauma and 65 years of age for GLFs. All-trauma patients older than 72 years had an over four times increased odds of mortality, while GLF patients older than 65 years have a threefold increase in mortality compared with patients below those cutoffs.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We find that, for the elderly, mortality increases at different change points for all-trauma and GLF patients (72 and 65 years of age, respectively). Based on this finding, further study should be done using these two different age cutoff points based on mechanism of injury to mitigate mortality in geriatric trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic and Epidemiologic Study; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should we redefine the age of geriatric trauma? An insight from American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database 30-day mortality risk.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Noureldin, Mary Matecki, Renxi Li, Jayati Atahar, Sean M Lee, Susan Kartiko\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TA.0000000000004611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Older injured patients have higher mortality compared with their younger counterparts, and their outcomes worsen with each decade of life. However, the exact age to classify a patient as \\\"geriatric\\\" is not universally defined. Identifying an evidence-based age cutoff for \\\"geriatric\\\" trauma activations is important to preserve hospital and human resources by not superfluously including younger patients but also not depriving older high-risk patients of resources needed to achieve their best recovery. The aim for our study is to define changes in mortality by age to determine the age at which patients are at risk of worse outcomes and should be classified as \\\"geriatric.\\\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective study of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We obtained patients who had ground level fall (GLF) and sampling of patients with all trauma mechanism between the age of 17 and 89 years. Binary segmentation change-point analysis was used to calculate the optimized number and position of change points in mean unadjusted mortality by age for both GLF and all trauma groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,360,160 GLF patients from the 2013-2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included. The random sample of all-trauma patients included 1,332,072 patients. Binary segmentation change-point analysis indicated that change point in mean unadjusted mortality occurs at 72 years of age for all trauma and 65 years of age for GLFs. All-trauma patients older than 72 years had an over four times increased odds of mortality, while GLF patients older than 65 years have a threefold increase in mortality compared with patients below those cutoffs.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We find that, for the elderly, mortality increases at different change points for all-trauma and GLF patients (72 and 65 years of age, respectively). Based on this finding, further study should be done using these two different age cutoff points based on mechanism of injury to mitigate mortality in geriatric trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic and Epidemiologic Study; Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004611\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004611","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与年轻人相比,老年伤员的死亡率更高,而且他们的预后会随着年龄的增长而恶化。然而,将患者划分为 "老年病 "的确切年龄并没有统一的定义。为 "老年 "创伤患者确定一个基于证据的年龄分界线对于保护医院和人力资源非常重要,这样既不会多余地纳入年轻患者,也不会剥夺老年高危患者获得最佳康复所需的资源。我们研究的目的是界定不同年龄段死亡率的变化,以确定患者在哪个年龄段有可能出现更糟的结果,并应将其归类为 "老年病":这是一项对美国外科医生学会创伤质量改进计划数据库的回顾性研究。我们获取了地面摔倒(GLF)患者的数据,并对年龄在17至89岁之间的所有创伤机制患者进行了抽样调查。我们使用二元分割变化点分析法计算了 GLF 组和所有创伤组按年龄划分的平均未调整死亡率变化点的优化数量和位置:2013-2021年美国外科医生学会创伤质量改进计划数据库共纳入1,360,160名GLF患者。所有创伤患者的随机样本包括 1,332,072 名患者。二元分割变化点分析表明,所有创伤患者平均未调整死亡率的变化点出现在 72 岁,而 GLF 患者的变化点出现在 65 岁。72岁以上的所有创伤患者的死亡几率增加了4倍多,而65岁以上的GLF患者的死亡率与低于这些临界值的患者相比增加了3倍:讨论:我们发现,对于老年人来说,所有创伤和 GLF 患者(分别为 72 岁和 65 岁)的死亡率在不同的变化点会增加。基于这一发现,应根据受伤机制使用这两个不同的年龄临界点进行进一步研究,以降低老年创伤患者的死亡率:证据级别:预后和流行病学研究;III 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should we redefine the age of geriatric trauma? An insight from American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database 30-day mortality risk.

Background: Older injured patients have higher mortality compared with their younger counterparts, and their outcomes worsen with each decade of life. However, the exact age to classify a patient as "geriatric" is not universally defined. Identifying an evidence-based age cutoff for "geriatric" trauma activations is important to preserve hospital and human resources by not superfluously including younger patients but also not depriving older high-risk patients of resources needed to achieve their best recovery. The aim for our study is to define changes in mortality by age to determine the age at which patients are at risk of worse outcomes and should be classified as "geriatric."

Methods: This is a retrospective study of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We obtained patients who had ground level fall (GLF) and sampling of patients with all trauma mechanism between the age of 17 and 89 years. Binary segmentation change-point analysis was used to calculate the optimized number and position of change points in mean unadjusted mortality by age for both GLF and all trauma groups.

Results: A total of 1,360,160 GLF patients from the 2013-2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included. The random sample of all-trauma patients included 1,332,072 patients. Binary segmentation change-point analysis indicated that change point in mean unadjusted mortality occurs at 72 years of age for all trauma and 65 years of age for GLFs. All-trauma patients older than 72 years had an over four times increased odds of mortality, while GLF patients older than 65 years have a threefold increase in mortality compared with patients below those cutoffs.

Discussion: We find that, for the elderly, mortality increases at different change points for all-trauma and GLF patients (72 and 65 years of age, respectively). Based on this finding, further study should be done using these two different age cutoff points based on mechanism of injury to mitigate mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

Level of evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiologic Study; Level III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
×
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