IMPORTANCEThe development and expansion of intracranial hematoma are associated with adverse outcomes. Use of tranexamic acid might limit intracranial hematoma formation, but its association with outcomes of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess whether prehospital administration of tranexamic acid is associated with mortality and functional outcomes in a group of patients with severe TBI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter cohort study is an analysis of prospectively collected observational data from the Brain Injury: Prehospital Registry of Outcome, Treatments and Epidemiology of Cerebral Trauma (BRAIN-PROTECT) study in the Netherlands. Patients treated for suspected severe TBI by the Dutch Helicopter Emergency Medical Services between February 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients were followed up for 1 year after inclusion. Data were analyzed from January 10, 2020, to September 10, 2020.EXPOSURES Administration of tranexamic acid during prehospital treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 1 year, functional neurological recovery at discharge (measured by Glasgow Outcome Scale), and length of hospital stay. Data were also collected on demographic factors, preinjury medical condition, injury characteristics, operational characteristics, and prehospital vital parameters.RESULTS A total of 1827 patients were analyzed, of whom 1283 (70%) were male individuals and the median (interquartile range) age was 45 (23-65) years. In the unadjusted analysis, higher 30-day mortality was observed in patients who received prehospital tranexamic acid (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; P < .001), compared with patients who did not receive prehospital tranexamic acid. After adjustment for confounders, no association between prehospital administration of tranexamic acid and mortality was found across the entire cohort of patients. However, a substantial increase in the odds of 30-day mortality persisted in patients with severe isolated TBI who received prehospital tranexamic acid (OR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.57-12.87; P = .005) and after multiple imputations (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.22-3.45; P = .007).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that prehospital tranexamic acid administration was associated with increased mortality in patients with isolated severe TBI, suggesting the judicious use of the drug when no evidence for extracranial hemorrhage is present.

BACKGROUND With implementation of trauma systems, a level of trauma care classification was introduced. Use of such a system has been linked to significant improvements in survival and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was assessing the association between level of trauma care and fatal and nonfatal outcome measures for general and major trauma (MT) populations. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to December 18, 2019. Studies comparing mortality or nonfatal outcomes between different levels of trauma care in general and MT populations (preferably Injury Severity Score of >15) were included. Two independent reviewers performed selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and a quality assessment of included articles. With a random-effects meta-analysis, adjusted and unadjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated for level I versus non–level I trauma centers. RESULTS Twenty-two studies were included. Quality of the included studies was good; however, adjustment for comorbidity (32%) and interhospital transfer (38%) was performed less frequently. Nine (60%) of the 15 studies analyzing in-hospital mortality in general trauma populations reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were not associated with higher mortality than non–level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–1.52). Of the 11 studies reporting in-hospital mortality in MT populations, 10 (91%) reported a survival benefit for level I trauma centers. Level I trauma centers were associated with lower mortality than non–level I trauma centers (adjusted odd ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.87). CONCLUSION The association between level of trauma care and in-hospital mortality is evident for MT populations; however, this does not hold for general trauma populations. Level I trauma centers produce improved survival in MT populations. This association could not be proven for nonfatal outcomes in general and MT populations because of inconsistencies in the body of evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Background A threshold Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 is common in classifying major trauma (MT), although the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) has been extensively revised over time. The aim of this study was to determine effects of different AIS revisions (1998, 2008 and 2015) on clinical outcome measures. Methods A retrospective observational cohort study including all primary admitted trauma patients was performed (in 2013–2014 AIS98 was used, in 2015–2016 AIS08, AIS08 mapped to AIS15). Different ISS thresholds for MT and their corresponding observed mortality and intensive care (ICU) admission rates were compared between AIS98, AIS08, and AIS15 with Chi-square tests and logistic regression models. Results Thirty-nine thousand three hundred seventeen patients were included. Thresholds ISS08 ≥ 11 and ISS15 ≥ 12 were similar to a threshold ISS98 ≥ 16 for in-hospital mortality (12.9, 12.9, 13.1% respectively) and ICU admission (46.7, 46.2, 46.8% respectively). AIS98 and AIS08 differed significantly for in-hospital mortality in ISS 4–8 (χ2 = 9.926, p = 0.007), ISS 9–11 (χ2 = 13.541, p = 0.001), ISS 25–40 (χ2 = 13.905, p = 0.001) and ISS 41–75 (χ2 = 7.217, p = 0.027). Mortality risks did not differ significantly between AIS08 and AIS15. Conclusion ISS08 ≥ 11 and ISS15 ≥ 12 perform similarly to a threshold ISS98 ≥ 16 for in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. This confirms studies evaluating mapped datasets, and is the first to present an evaluation of implementation of AIS15 on registry datasets. Defining MT using appropriate ISS thresholds is important for quality indicators, comparing datasets and adjusting for injury severity. Level of evidence Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Introduction Major trauma often results in long-term disabilities. The aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life, cognition, and return to work 1 year after major trauma from a trauma network perspective. Methods All major trauma patients in 2016 (Injury Severity Score > 15, n = 536) were selected from trauma region Southwest Netherlands. Eligible patients (n = 365) were sent questionnaires with the EQ-5D-5L and questions on cognition, level of education, comorbidities, and resumption of paid work 1 year after trauma. Results A 50% (n = 182) response rate was obtained. EQ-US and EQ-VAS scored a median (IQR) of 0.81 (0.62–0.89) and 70 (60–80), respectively. Limitations were prevalent in all health dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L; 90 (50%) responders reported problems with mobility, 36 (20%) responders reported problems with self-care, 108 (61%) responders reported problems during daily activities, 129 (73%) responders reported pain or discomfort, 70 (39%) responders reported problems with anxiety or depression, and 102 (61%) of the patients reported problems with cognition. Return to work rate was 68% (37% full, 31% partial). A median (IQR) EQ-US of 0.89 (0.82–1.00) and EQ-VAS of 80 (70–90) were scored for fully working responders; 0.77 (0.66–0.85, p < 0.001) and 70 (62–80, p = 0.001) for partial working respondents; and 0.49 (0.23–0.69, p < 0.001) and 55 (40–72, p < 0.001) for unemployed respondents. Conclusion The majority experience problems in all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition. Return to work status was associated with all health domains of the EQ-5D-5L and cognition.

PurposeThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic severely disrupted society and the health care system. In addition to epidemiological changes, little is known about the pandemic's effects on the trauma care chain. Therefore, in addition to epidemiology and aetiology, this study aims to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on prehospital times, resource use and outcome. Methods A multicentre observational cohort study based on the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcomes of trauma patients treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first (W1, March 12 through May 11) and second waves (W2, May 12 through September 23), as well as the interbellum period in between (INT, September 23 through December 31), were compared with those treated from the same periods in 2018 and 2019. ResultsThe trauma caseload was reduced by 20% during the W1 period and 11% during the W2 period. The median length of stay was significantly shortened for hip fracture and major trauma patients (ISS ≥ 16). A 33% and 66% increase in the prevalence of minor self-harm-related injuries was recorded during the W1 and W2 periods, respectively, and a 36% increase in violence-related injuries was recorded during the INT. Mortality was significantly higher in the W1 (2.9% vs. 2.2%) and W2 (3.2% vs. 2.7%) periods. ConclusionThe imposed restrictions in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to diminished numbers of acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. The long-lasting pressing demand for resources, including ICU services, has negatively affected trauma care. Further caution is warranted regarding the increased incidence of injuries related to violence and self-harm.