-
J Trauma Acute Care Surg · Jun 2019
Should they stay or should they go? Who benefits from interfacility transfer to a higher-level trauma center following initial presentation at a lower-level trauma center.
- Tessa Adzemovic, Thomas Murray, Peter Jenkins, Julie Ottosen, Uroghupatei Iyegha, Krishnan Raghavendran, Lena M Napolitano, Mark R Hemmila, Jonathan Gipson, Pauline Park, and Christopher J Tignanelli.
- From the University of Michigan Medical School (T.A.), Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Biostatistics (T.M.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Surgery (P.J.), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana; Department of Surgery (J.O., C.J.T.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Surgery (J.O., J.G.P., C.J.T.), North Memorial Health Hospital, Robbinsdale, Minnesota, Department of Surgery (U.I.), Regions Hospital, St. Paul, Minnesota; Department of Surgery (K.R., L.M.N., M.R.H., P.P.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Institute for Health Informatics (C.J.T.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
- J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Jun 1; 86 (6): 952-960.
BackgroundInterfacility transfer of patients from Level III/IV to Level I/II (tertiary) trauma centers has been associated with improved outcomes. However, little data are available classifying the specific subsets of patients that derive maximal benefit from transfer to a tertiary trauma center. Drawbacks to transfer include increased secondary overtriage. Here, we ask which injury patterns are associated with improved survival following interfacility transfer.MethodsData from the National Trauma Data Bank was utilized. Inclusion criteria were adults (≥16 years). Patients with Injury Severity Score of 10 or less or those who arrived with no signs of life were excluded. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those admitted to a Level III/IV trauma center versus those transferred into a tertiary trauma center. Multiple imputation was performed for missing values, and propensity scores were generated based on demographics, injury patterns, and disease severity. Using propensity score-stratified Cox proportional hazards regression, the hazard ratio for time to death was estimated.ResultsTwelve thousand five hundred thirty-four (5.2%) were admitted to Level III/IV trauma centers, and 227,315 (94.8%) were transferred to a tertiary trauma center. Patients transferred to a tertiary trauma center had reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.69; p < 0.001). We identified that patients with traumatic brain injury with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 13, pelvic fracture, penetrating mechanism, solid organ injury, great vessel injury, respiratory distress, and tachycardia benefited from interfacility transfer to a tertiary trauma center. In this sample, 56.8% of the patients benefitted from transfer. Among those not transferred, 49.5% would have benefited from being transferred.ConclusionInterfacility transfer is associated with a survival benefit for specific patients. These data support implementation of minimum evidence-based criteria for interfacility transfer.Level Of EvidenceTherapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.