Background: Al though controversial, there has been a consensus that compared with non-regional trauma centers, regional trauma centers have survival benefits. In a predominantly rural province with a single regional trauma center, we compared the in-hospital mortality of all trauma patients and severely injured patients between regional and non-regional trauma centers.
Methods: Using data extracted from the National Emergency Department Information System in Korea, we examined all trauma patients who visited emergency departments in Gangwon province between January 2015 and December 2017. The International Classification of Disease-Based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) was used to categorize the severity of the patients. Propensity score matching was used for balancing the severity between the two groups.
Results: Of 23,510 trauma patients, 2,857 and 20,653 were treated in regional and non-regional trauma centers, respectively. After propensity score matching, all patients in the non-regional trauma center group had a 6.27-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group; severely injured patients—defined as those with ICISS < 0.9—in the non-regional trauma center group had a 4.90-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group. ICISS cutoff values for mortality were 0.9015 and 0.8737 for the non-regional and regional trauma center groups, respectively.
Conclusion: Conventional paradigms of trauma systems can be used in predominantly rural Korean provinces, because trauma care in regional trauma centers conferred better survival benefits than that in non-regional trauma centers. Additionally, severely injured patients should be transported to regional trauma centers from the trauma scene.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Posted 08 Sep, 2020
Posted 08 Sep, 2020
Background: Al though controversial, there has been a consensus that compared with non-regional trauma centers, regional trauma centers have survival benefits. In a predominantly rural province with a single regional trauma center, we compared the in-hospital mortality of all trauma patients and severely injured patients between regional and non-regional trauma centers.
Methods: Using data extracted from the National Emergency Department Information System in Korea, we examined all trauma patients who visited emergency departments in Gangwon province between January 2015 and December 2017. The International Classification of Disease-Based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) was used to categorize the severity of the patients. Propensity score matching was used for balancing the severity between the two groups.
Results: Of 23,510 trauma patients, 2,857 and 20,653 were treated in regional and non-regional trauma centers, respectively. After propensity score matching, all patients in the non-regional trauma center group had a 6.27-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group; severely injured patients—defined as those with ICISS < 0.9—in the non-regional trauma center group had a 4.90-fold higher risk of mortality than those in the regional trauma center group. ICISS cutoff values for mortality were 0.9015 and 0.8737 for the non-regional and regional trauma center groups, respectively.
Conclusion: Conventional paradigms of trauma systems can be used in predominantly rural Korean provinces, because trauma care in regional trauma centers conferred better survival benefits than that in non-regional trauma centers. Additionally, severely injured patients should be transported to regional trauma centers from the trauma scene.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...