Im J, et al. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023 Feb;104(2):61-70. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2023.104.2.61

We hypothesized that the recent change of sepsis definition by sepsis-3 would facilitate the measurement of timing of sepsis for trauma patients presenting with initial systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Moreover, we investigated factors associated with sepsis according to the sepsis-3 definition. Trauma patients in a single level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed from January 2014 to December 2016. Exclusion criteria were younger than 18 years, Injury Severity Score (ISS) <15, length of stay <8 days, transferred from other hospitals, uncertain trauma history, and incomplete medical records. A binary logistic regression test was used to identify the risk factors for sepsis-3. A total of 3,869 patients were considered and, after a process of exclusion, 422 patients were reviewed. Fifty patients (11.85%) were diagnosed with sepsis. The sepsis group presented with higher mortality (14 [28.0%] vs. 17 [4.6%], P<0.001) and longer intensive care unit stay (23 days [range, 11 to 35 days] vs. 3 days [range, 1 to 9 days], P<0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that, in men, high lactate level and red blood cell transfusion within 24 hours were risk factors for sepsis. The median timing of sepsis-3 was at 8 hospital days and 4 postoperative days. The most common focus was the respiratory system. Sepsis defined by sepsis-3 remains a critical issue in severe trauma patients. Male patients with higher ISS, lactate level, and red blood cell transfusion should be cared for with caution. Reassessment of sepsis should be considered at day 8 of hospital stay or day 4 postoperatively.

Kwon J, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Nov;37(50):e349. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e349

Background: Trauma is a major cause of mortality, disability, and health care costs worldwide. The establishment of a trauma system is known to solve these problems, but few studies have objectively evaluated the impact of a trauma system on outcomes. Since 2012, South Korea has established a national trauma system based on the implementation of 17 regional trauma centers nationwide and the improvement of the prehospital transfer system. This study aimed to measure the changes in performance and outcome according to the established national trauma system. Material and Methods: In this national cohort-based, retrospective follow-up observational study, the authors calculated the preventable trauma death rate (PTDR) by conducting a multipanel review of patients who died in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Furthermore, the authors constructed a risk-adjusted mortality prediction model of 4 767 876 patients between 2015 and 2019 using the extended-International Classification of Disease Injury Severity Scores to compare outcomes. Results: The PTDR was lower in 2019 than in 2015 (15.7 vs. 30.5, P <0.001) and 2017 (15.7 vs. 19.9%, P<0.001) representing 1247 additional lives saved in 2019 compared to that in 2015. In the risk-adjusted model, total trauma mortality was highest in 2015 at 0.56%, followed by that in 2016 and 2017 (0.50%), 2018 (0.51%), and 2019 (0.48%), revealing a significant decrease in mortality over the years (P<0.001 for trend), representing nearly 800 additional lives saved. The number of deaths for more severe patients with a probability of survival less than 0.25 significantly decreased from 81.50% in 2015 to 66.17% in 2019 (P<0.001). Conclusions: The authors observed a significant reduction in the PTDR and risk-adjusted trauma mortality in the 5-year follow-up since 2015 when the national trauma system was established. These findings could serve as a model for low-income and middle-income countries, where trauma systems are not yet established.

Although South Korea is a high-income country, its trauma system is comparable to low- and middle-income countries with high preventable trauma death rates of more than 30%. Since 2012, South Korea has established a national trauma system based on the implementation of regional trauma centers and improvement of the transfer system; this study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness. We compared the national preventable trauma death rates, transfer patterns, and outcomes between 2015 and 2017. The review of preventable trauma deaths was conducted by multiple panels, and a severity-adjusted logistic regression model was created to identify factors influencing the preventable trauma death rate. We also compared the number of trauma patients transferred to emergency medical institutions and mortality in models adjusted with injury severity scores. The preventable trauma death rate decreased from 2015 to 2017 (30.5% vs. 19.9%,p< 0.001). In the severity-adjusted model, the preventable trauma death risk had a lower odds ratio (0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.87,p= 0.002) in 2017 than in 2015. Regional trauma centers received 1.6 times more severe cases in 2017 (according to the International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score [ICISS]; 23.1% vs. 36.5%). In the extended ICISS model, the overall trauma mortality decreased significantly from 2.1% (1008/47 806) to 1.9% (1062/55 057) (p= 0.041). The establishment of the national trauma system was associated with significant improvements in the performance and outcomes of trauma care. This was mainly because of the implementation of regional trauma centers and because more severe patients were transferred to regional trauma centers. This study might be a good model for low- and middle-income countries, which lack a trauma system.