Dataset Information

Changes in the characteristics of trauma patients after the early COVID-19 outbreak: A retrospective study of a regional level 1 trauma center in Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Abstract

Gyeonggi-do (Gyeonggi province) has the second highest number of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases in the Republic of Korea after Seoul, with approximately 25% of the COVID-19 patients as of January 2021. Our center is a level I trauma center located in south Gyeonggi-do, and we aimed to evaluate whether the characteristics of trauma patients changed after the COVID-19 pandemic.We retrospectively reviewed the trauma patients registered with the Korea Trauma Database of the Center from February 2019 to January 2021. The patients were dichotomized into pre-coronavirus disease (pre-COVID) and coronavirus disease (COVID) groups, and their trauma volumes, injury characteristics, intentionality, and outcomes were compared.A total of 2628 and 2636 patients were included in the pre-COVID and COVID groups, respectively. During the COVID-19 period, motorcycle accidents, bicycle accidents, and penetrating injury cases increased, and pedestrian traffic accidents, slips, and injury by machines decreased. The average daily number of patients in the COVID group was lower in March (5.6 ± 2.6/day vs 7.2 ± 2.4/day, P = .014) and higher in September (9.9 ± 3.2/day vs 7.7 ± 2.0/day, P = .003) compared to the pre-COVID group. The COVID group also had a higher ratio of direct admissions (67.5% vs 57.2%, P < .001), proportion of suicidal patients (4.1% vs 2.7%, P = .005), and injury severity scores (14 [9-22] vs 12 [4-22], P < .001) than the pre-COVID group. The overall mortality (4.7% vs 4.9%, P = .670) and intensive care unit length of stay (2 [0-3] days vs 2 [0-4] days, P = .153) was not different between the 2 groups.Although the total number of patients did not change, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of monthly admissions and the injury mechanisms changed. More severely injured patients were admitted directly to the trauma center.

SUBMITTER: Park J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758017 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundKetamine and etomidate are commonly used as sedatives in rapid sequence intubation (RSI). However, there is no consensus on which agent should be favored when treating patients with trauma. This study aimed to compare the effects of ketamine and etomidate on first-pass success and outcomes of patients with trauma after RSI-facilitated emergency intubation.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 944 patients who underwent endotracheal intubation in a trauma bay at a Korean level 1 trauma center between January 2019 and December 2021. Outcomes were compared between the ketamine and etomidate groups after propensity score matching to balance the overall distribution between the two groups.ResultsIn total, 620 patients were included in the analysis, of which 118 (19.9%) were administered ketamine and the remaining 502 (80.1%) were treated with etomidate. Patients in the ketamine group showed a significantly faster initial heart rate (105.0 ± 25.7 vs. 97.7 ± 23.6, p = 0.003), were more hypotensive (114.2 ± 32.8 mmHg vs. 139.3 ± 34.4 mmHg, p < 0.001), and had higher Glasgow Coma Scale (9.1 ± 4.0 vs. 8.2 ± 4.0, p = 0.031) and Injury Severity Score (32.5 ± 16.3 vs. 27.0 ± 13.3, p < 0.001) than those in the etomidate group. There were no significant differences in the first-pass success rate (90.7% vs. 90.1%, p > 0.999), final mortality (16.1% vs. 20.6, p = 0.348), length of stay in the intensive care unit (days) (8 [4, 15] (Interquartile range)), vs. 10 [4, 21], p = 0.998), ventilator days (4 [2, 10] vs. 5 [2, 13], p = 0.735), and hospital stay (days) (24.5 [10.25, 38.5] vs. 22 [8, 40], p = 0.322) in the 1:3 propensity score matching analysis.ConclusionIn this retrospective study of trauma resuscitation, those receiving intubation with ketamine had greater hemodynamic instability than those receiving etomidate. However, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients sedated with ketamine and those treated with etomidate.

Project description:There is an upward trend in facial injuries following changes in population pattern, increasing industrialization and urbanization, hence maxillofacial trauma is becoming a burden and a leading medical problem in emergency rooms worldwide. This study was performed to evaluate the pattern of maxillofacial fractures, associated injuries, and treatment used at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center (JPNATC), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India, between January 2007 and June 2010. The study provides basis for establishment of trauma as major etiology of maxillofacial injuries and planning for preventive strategies. A retrospective study of patients seen and treated at JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi, between January 2007 and June 2010 was performed. Data extracted from patient records included etiology, age, sex, types and sites of fractures, treatment modality, and concomitant injuries. There were 795 fractures of the maxillofacial skeleton and 86 concomitant injuries from 542 patients. Road traffic accident (RTA) (56.8%) was the most common etiologic factor, followed by falls (22.3%) and fights (18.5%). The age range was from 3 to 75 years (mean, 34.7 years) with a peak incidence in the third decade with a male-to-female ratio of 3.7:1. The most common location of maxillofacial fractures was the mandible 615 (77%) and middle third 180 (23%). With regard to mandibular fractures, the body (29.6%) was the most common site, followed by the angle (24.4%), ramus (19.5%), dentoalveolar (14.6%), symphysis (11.0%), condyle (0.8%) while in the middle third, the nasal bone (36.7%) was the most common, followed by zygomatic bone (27.8), Lefort II (14.4), Lefort I (7.8%), dentoalveolar (10.0%), and Lefort III (3.3%). Majority of the patients were treated by open reduction and internal fixation (70.6). Concomitant injuries were 84 (10.8%) with orthopedic injuries accounting for the majority (63.9%). Head injury was associated in 16.3% of cases. RTA was the major etiologic factor of maxillofacial injuries in our setting and the young adult males were the main victims. Henceforth, establishment of regionalized, efficient, and focused trauma centers in various parts of the country particularly for acute trauma should be emphasized. Also, the laws regarding the precautions such as seat belts, speed limits, and traffic rules must be observed strictly to reduce the incidence of RTA.

Project description:Background and aimsThe COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the epidemiology of various clinical conditions, including trauma which is closely tied to social policies. This study examines and compares the characteristics of trauma mortality patients, and their initial prognostic trauma scores, in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study involving patients who passed away at a level 1 trauma center from July 23, 2018, to February 19, 2020 (prepandemic), and from February 20, 2020, to September 22, 2021 (pandemic). A subgroup analysis that matched 12 of the same months of the year in the two periods was also done. Patients who arrived deceased or passed away immediately upon arrival were excluded from data analysis. We collected and analyzed demographic and clinical data, employing the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and ISS (TRISS) to compare initial prognoses.ResultsOur study encompassed 1128 patients, with 529 in the prepandemic group and 599 in the pandemic group. Demographic characteristics showed no significant differences in the number of patients in the two periods. Motor vehicle accidents remained the predominant injury mechanism in both periods. While the mean ISS increased insignificantly (22.80 vs. 22.91, p = 0.902), the mean RTS decreased (6.32 vs. 5.82), and TRISS increased (23.97% vs. 28.93%) during the pandemic (p < 0.05). Hospital length of stay decreased in the pandemic period (15.57 vs. 12.54 days, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed increased ISS, decreased RTS, and increased TRISS during the pandemic (p < 0.05).ConclusionIn conclusion, while overall demographics and injury mechanisms remained virtually unchanged, trauma patients during the pandemic displayed worse estimated clinical prognoses, particularly in physiological trauma scores. The heightened mortality rate was attributed to poorer clinical conditions of patients.

Dataset Information

Changes in the characteristics of trauma patients after the early COVID-19 outbreak: A retrospective study of a regional level 1 trauma center in Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets