Comparative Effectiveness of Emergency Resuscitative Thoracotomy versus Closed Chest Compressions among Patients with Critical Blunt Trauma: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Japan

Kodai Suzuki, Shigeaki Inoue, Seiji Morita, Nobuo Watanabe, Ayumi Shintani, Sadaki Inokuchi and Shinji Ogura

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 1, 1-12

Abstract: Background: Although emergency resuscitative thoracotomy is performed as a salvage maneuver for critical blunt trauma patients, evidence supporting superior effectiveness of emergency resuscitative thoracotomy compared to conventional closed-chest compressions remains insufficient. The objective of this study was to investigate whether emergency resuscitative thoracotomy at the emergency department or in the operating room was associated with favourable outcomes after blunt trauma and to compare its effectiveness with that of closed-chest compressions. Methods: This was a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Data were obtained from the Japan Trauma Data Bank for the period between 2004 and 2012. The primary and secondary outcomes were patient survival rates 24 h and 28 d after emergency department arrival. Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable generalized mixed-effects regression analysis. We adjusted for the effects of different hospitals by introducing random intercepts in regression analysis to account for the differential quality of emergency resuscitative thoracotomy at hospitals where patients in cardiac arrest were treated. Sensitivity analyses were performed using propensity score matching. Results: In total, 1,377 consecutive, critical blunt trauma patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department or operating room were included in the study. Of these patients, 484 (35.1%) underwent emergency resuscitative thoracotomy and 893 (64.9%) received closed-chest compressions. Compared to closed-chest compressions, emergency resuscitative thoracotomy was associated with lower survival rate 24 h after emergency department arrival (4.5% vs. 17.5%, respectively, P

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145963 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 45963&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0145963

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145963

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().