BACKGROUND:Deviation from guidelines is frequent in emergency situations, and this may lead to increased mortality. Probably because of time constraints, 55% is the greatest reported guidelines compliance rate in severe trauma patients. This study aimed to identify among all available recommendations a reasonable bundle of items that should be followed to optimize the outcome of hemorrhagic shocks (HSs) and severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). METHODS:We first estimated the compliance with French and European guidelines using the data from the French TraumaBase registry. Then, we used a machine learning procedure to reduce the number of recommendations into a minimal set of items to be followed to minimize 7-day mortality. We evaluated the bundles using an external validation cohort. RESULTS:This study included 5,924 trauma patients (1,414 HS and 4,955 TBI) between 2011 and August 2019 and studied compliance to 36 recommendation items. Overall compliance rate to recommendation items was 71.6% and 66.9% for HS and TBI, respectively. In HS, compliance was significantly associated with 7-day decreased mortality in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.17; p = 0.06). In TBI, compliance was significantly associated with decreased mortality in univariate and multivariate analysis (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; p = 0.01). For HS, the bundle included 13 recommendation items. In the validation cohort, when this bundle was applied, patients were found to have a lower 7-day mortality rate (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63; p = 0.01). In TBI, the bundle included seven items. In the validation cohort, when this bundle was applied, patients had a lower 7-day mortality rate (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.71; p = 0.02). DISCUSSION:Using a machine-learning procedure, we were able to identify a subset of recommendations that minimizes 7-day mortality following traumatic HS and TBI. These two bundles remain to be evaluated in a prospective manner. (
Purpose To compare the characteristics, management, and prognosis of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 during the first two waves of the outbreak and to evaluate the relationship between ICU strain (ICU demand due to COVID-19 admissions) and mortality. Methods In a multicentre retrospective study, 1166 COVID-19 patients admitted to five ICUs in France between 20 February and 31 December 2020 were included. Data were collected at each ICU from medical records. A Cox proportional-hazards model identified factors associated with 28-day mortality. Results 640 patients (55%) were admitted during the first wave (February to June 2020) and 526 (45%) during the second wave (July to December 2020). ICU strain was lower during the second wave (-0.81 [-1.04 –-0.31] vs. 1.18 [-0.34–1.29] SD when compared to mean COVID-19 admission in each center during study period, P<0.001). Patients admitted during the second wave were older, had more profound hypoxemia and lower SOFA. High flow nasal cannula was more frequently used during the second wave (68% vs. 39%, P<0.001) and intubation was less frequent (46% vs. 69%, P<0.001). Neither 28-day mortality (30% vs. 26%, P = 0.12) nor hospital mortality (37% vs. 31%, P = 0.27) differed between first and second wave. Overweight and obesity were associated with lower 28-day mortality while older age, underlying chronic kidney disease, severity at ICU admission as assessed by SOFA score and ICU strain were associated with higher 28-day mortality. ICU strain was not associated with hospital mortality. Conclusion The characteristics and the management of patients varied between the first and the second wave of the pandemic. Rather than the wave, ICU strain was independently associated with 28-day mortality, but not with hospital mortality.
ObjectivesThe clinical outcomes of the Beta (B.1.351) variant of concern (VOC) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remain poorly understood. In early 2021, northeastern France experienced an outbreak of Beta that was not observed elsewhere. This outbreak slightly preceded and then overlapped with a second outbreak of the better understood VOC Alpha (B.1.1.7) in the region. This situation allowed us to contemporaneously compare Alpha and Beta in terms of the characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients.MethodsA multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted on all consecutive adult patients who had laboratory confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, underwent variant screening, and were admitted to one of four intensive care units (ICU) for acute respiratory failure between January 9th and May 15th, 2021. Primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Differences between Alpha and Beta in terms of other outcomes, patient variables, management, and vaccination characteristics were also explored by univariate analysis. The factors that associated with 60-day death in Alpha- and Beta-infected patients were examined with logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn total, 333 patients (median age, 63 years; 68% male) were enrolled. Of these, 174 and 159 had Alpha and Beta, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of 60-day mortality (19 vs. 23%), 28-day mortality (17 vs. 20%), need for mechanical ventilation (60 vs. 61%), mechanical ventilation duration (14 vs. 15 days), other management variables, patient demographic variables, comorbidities, or clinical variables on ICU admission. The vast majority of patients were unvaccinated (94%). The remaining 18 patients had received a partial vaccine course and 2 were fully vaccinated. The vaccinated patients were equally likely to have Alpha and Beta.ConclusionsBeta did not differ from Alpha in terms of patient characteristics, management, or outcomes in critically ill patients.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04906850.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.