Verletzungsmuster verunfallter PKW-Insassen mit Polytrauma: Prospektive Studie zum Einfluss von Unfall- und Schutzmechanismen

Evaluation der Aufnahmekriterien von Patienten nach Verkehrsunfall in den Schockraum

Hintergrund

Die aktuelle S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) empfiehlt bei einem Pkw-Unfall mit einer Geschwindigkeitsveränderung von delta >30 km/h die Versorgung in einem Schockraum ohne Berücksichtigung der Verletzungen des Patienten. Ziel dieser Studie war es zu untersuchen, ob Patienten, die ausschließlich aufgrund dieses Kriteriums über einen Schockraum aufgenommen wurden, relevante Verletzungen aufwiesen, die intensivmedizinische Behandlungen oder (Not‑)Operationen benötigten.

Methode

Nach einem Pkw-Unfall wurden Patienten ohne spezifische Verletzung, bei denen ausschließlich eine Geschwindigkeitsveränderung von delta >30 km/h vorlag (Empfehlungsgrad B der S3-Leitlinie), der Studiengruppe, Patienten mit Verletzungen gem. Empfehlungsgrad A der Leitlinie der Vergleichsgruppe zugeordnet. Ein schockraumrelevantes Trauma wurde als Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16, operative Versorgung innerhalb 24 h, intensivmedizinische Überwachung >24 h, Versterben während des Krankenhausaufenthalts sowie DGU-Basiskollektiv (MAIS3+ oder MAIS2 mit Intensivverweildauer >24 h bzw. Versterben während des Krankenhausaufenthalts) definiert.

Ergebnisse

Der Vergleich zeigte einen hochsignifikanten Unterschied in Bezug auf den mittleren ISS (p ≤ 0,001), ein schockraumrelevantes Trauma (ISS ≥16; p ≤ 0,001), eine intensivmedizinische Versorgung >24 h (p ≤ 0,001), Operation innerhalb von 24 h nach Krankenhausaufnahme (p ≤ 0,001), Letalität (p ≤ 0,001) sowie DGU-Basiskollektiv (p ≤ 0,001). Anhand dieser Ergebnisse konnte gezeigt werden, dass innerhalb der Studiengruppe (Geschwindigkeitsveränderung von delta >30 km/h; Empfehlungsgrad B der S3-Leitlinie) lediglich ein Patient eine Traumafolge aufwies, die eine intensivmedizinische Behandlung >24 h oder eine Operation nötig machte. Studien- und Vergleichsgruppen waren in Bezug auf das mittlere Alter (p = 1,778), das männliche Geschlecht (p = 0,1728) sowie die durchschnittliche Unfallgeschwindigkeit (p = 0,4606) vergleichbar.

Diskussion

Ein alleiniges Vorliegen eines Pkw-Unfalls mit einer Geschwindigkeitsveränderung von delta >30 km/h kann nicht als adäquater Prädiktor für ein schockraumrelevantes Trauma gesehen werden. Weitere Studien könnten durch eine Leitlinienanpassung eine weiterhin sichere und hochwertige Patientenversorgung bei Reduktion von personellen und finanziellen Belastungen ermöglichen.

[Assessment of prehospital injury severity in children: challenge for emergency physicians]

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of polytraumatized patients is dependent on the quality of emergency room (ER) management and a smooth transition from prehospital to ER therapy is essential. The accurate assessment of prehospital injury severity by emergency physicians influences prehospital therapy and level of care of the destination hospital. It also helps to ensure that medical resources are immediately available. Overestimation of injury severity wastes resources and underestimation puts patients at risk. The assessment of prehospital injury severity in adults is unreliable. In children, the assessment of injury severity seems to be even more challenging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the comparison of the prehospital documented injury severity and injury severity diagnosed after the ER phase, the injury severity score (ISS) and trauma-ISS (TRISS) were calculated. The TRISS consists of the ISS and the revised trauma score (RTS). All diagnoses of the prehospital and admission charts were collected and an injury severity was allocated according to the abbreviated injury scale (AIS). The concordance of the injury severity within different tolerances was evaluated. A tolerance of the prehospital documented injury severity of more than ± 25 % to the injury severity calculated after ER diagnostics was considered as overestimation or underestimation. The concordance of the prehospital documented diagnosed injury severity and the severity diagnosed after the ER phase of different body regions according to the AIS was evaluated. The documented mechanism of injury in the emergency physician protocol was judged as being detailed, satisfactory or poor.

RESULTS

The results showed that 69 % of the children reached the ER during on-call hours. Furthermore 92 % of the children reached the ER during the daytime between 08.00 h and 20.00 h. The transportation of 25 % of the children was on a private basis. The mean ER-ISS was 10 points (range 1-57). In 42 % of cases the ISS of the emergency physician protocol within a tolerance of ± 25 % was concordant with the ER-ISS. According to this criterion in 38 % of cases an overestimation of the assessment of the injury severity of the emergency physician was found and in 20 % an underestimation. Within a tolerance of ± 75 % based on the ER-ISS, the ISS of the emergency physician protocol was concordant in more than half of the cases (52 %). Using the TRISS with a tolerance of ± 25 % a concordance was observed in 46 % of the cases. Within a tolerance of ± 50 % based on the ER-ISS the ISS calculated after ER diagnostics was concordant in 50 % of the cases. A high concordance of the prehospital and hospital injury severity was found in the region of the face (75 %). The concordance in the body regions of the head, thorax, extremities and pelvis and soft tissue ranged between 43 % and 50 % of the cases. Of the children 38 % suffered a traffic accident, 52 % a fall of less than 3 m and 10 % of more than 3 m. The mechanism of injury was documented in detail in 70 % and satisfactory in 8 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of prehospital injury severity in children is unreliable. In order to evaluate injury severity the use of anatomical trauma scores alone is insufficient. The adequate documentation of the mechanism of injury implies that the mechanism of injury seems to play a relevant role in the assessment of prehospital injury severity. The unreliable assessment of the injury severity, the arrival in the ER in on-call hours and the private transport to the hospital is a challenge to the ER leader in trauma life support for children.

[Preclinical prediction of prehospital injury severity by emergency physicians : approach to evaluate validity]

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of polytraumatized patients is basically dependent on the quality of emergency room (ER) management and a smooth transition from prehospital emergency therapy to ER therapy is essential. The accurate prediction of the prehospital injury severity by emergency physicians influences prehospital therapy and level of care of the destination hospital. Furthermore it helps to provide medical resources on time. Overestimation of injury severity wastes resources, underestimation puts patients at risk. Prehospital misjudgement of injury severity is common. The aim of this study was to evaluate reliability of the injury severity estimated by emergency physicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For comparison of the prehospital and hospital injury severity the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Trauma-ISS (TRISS) were calculated. The TRISS consists of the ISS and the Revised Trauma Score (RTS). All diagnoses of the prehospital and admission charts were collected and an injury severity was allocated according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The concordance of prehospital and hospital injury severity at different ranges and according to different body regions was evaluated. A difference of more than 25% between the prehospital injury severity and the injury severity calculated after ER diagnostics was considered as being relevant and judged as overestimation or underestimation. The documented injury severity in the emergency physician protocol was judged as detailed, satisfactory and poor.

RESULTS

Of the patients 73% reached the ER during on-call hours. The mean ER-ISS was 19 (1-50). At a range of ±25% referring to the ER-ISS, 30% overestimation and 36% underestimation of the prehospital injury severity was observed. A concordance of 34% was found. At a range of ±50% the concordance between the prehospital injury severity and the injury severity calculated after ER diagnostics was 57%, at a range of ±75% the concordance was 73%. The mean ER-TRISS was 6.9 points (0.3-98.6) and the mean ER-RTS was 7.569 points (0-7.841). Using the TRISS with a range of ±25% a concordance of 28% was observed. A high concordance of the prehospital and hospital injury severity was found in the region of the face (70%) and external soft tissue injuries (80%). The concordance in the body region of the abdomen was 55%, of the thorax 40%, of the extremities and pelvis 37% and of the head 33%. Underestimation in the region of the abdomen was 32%, of the head 37%, of the thorax 42% and of the extremities and pelvis 47%. Missed injuries were the reason for underestimation in the body region of extremities and pelvis in half of the cases. Of the patients 61% suffered a traffic accident, 25% a fall of less than 3 m and 8% of more than 3 m. In 5% of the cases other mechanisms of injury were observed. Injury severity was documented in a detailed manner in 61% and satisfactory in 26%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction of prehospital injury severity is difficult and less reliable. Relevant underestimation of injury severity was observed in visceral cavities. In order to evaluate injury severity the use of anatomical trauma scores alone might be not sufficient. In addition, the mechanism of injury and the deduced consequences, such as prehospital therapy, the choice of destination hospital and the need of ER treatment should be taken into account.

[Emergency care for traffic accidents in Bavaria: current process analysis depending on hospital and emergency service structures]

A change is emerging in the hospital landscape due to health political measures, which in consequence also influences the prehospital medical care in emergencies. The main focus of this study was to gather information about emergency medical care after traffic accidents on the basis of data from Bavarian emergency medical services. In 2006 there were 14,261 traffic accidents in Bavaria where an emergency doctor attended the scene. The patients were primarily cared for by land-based rescue services and air rescue services were only used in 19.1% of the cases. Of the patients involved in a traffic accident 47.6% were transported to a primary health care hospital. A prehospital interval of more than 60 min occurred in 20% of the missions. Of the patients 96.2% were transported to tertiary or maximum care hospital by air rescue services but emergency facilities were, however restricted to daylight hours. There was a further limitation due to the routine duty hours in hospitals as only 36.7% of accidents occurred during this time intervall. An increase of admission post trauma in maximum care clinics occurred from 2002 until 2006 while simultaneously the prehospital period was extended. In order to assure sufficient trauma care for seriously injured persons a continuous 24 h availability of emergency trauma facilities is necessary. For this purpose it is necessary to establish regional trauma networks between receiving hospitals as well as air rescue services at night time. Furthermore, a cost-efficient compensation of the structural, personnel and logistic expenses for the treatment of the severely injured has to be assured.