Epidemiology of geriatric trauma patients in Norway: A nationwide analysis of Norwegian Trauma Registry data, 2015-2018. A retrospective cohort study.
Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/20118Date
2020-11-04Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Abstract
Materials and methods - This retrospective analysis is based on data from the Norwegian Trauma Registry (2015-2018). Injury severity was scaled using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Trauma patients 16 years or older with NISS ≥9 were included, dichotomized into age groups 16–64 years (Group 1, G1) and ≥65 years (Group 2, G2). The groups were compared with respect to differences in demographics, injury characteristics, management and outcome. Descriptive statistics and relevant parametric and non-parametric tests were used.
Results - Geriatric patients proved to be at risk of sustaining severe injuries. Low-energy falls predominated in G2, and the AIS body regions ‘Head’ and ‘Pelvis and lower extremities’ were most frequently injured. Crude 30-day mortality was higher in G2 compared to G1 (G1: 2.9 vs. G2: 13.6%, P<0.01) and the trauma team activation (TTA) rate was lower (G1: 90 vs. G2: 73%, P<0.01). A lower proportion of geriatric patients were treated by a physician prehospitally (G1: 30 vs. G2: 18%, [NISS 15–24], P<0.01) and transported by air-ambulance (G1: 24 vs. G2: 14%, [NISS 15–24], P<0.01). Median time from alarm to hospital admission was longer for geriatric patients (G1: 71 vs. G2: 78 min [NISS 15–24], P<0.01), except for the most severely injured patients (NISS≥25).
Conclusion - In this nationwide study comparing adult and geriatric trauma patients, geriatric patients were found to have a higher mortality, receive less frequently advanced prehospital treatment and transportation, and a lower TTA rate. This is surprising in the setting of a Nordic country with free access to publicly funded emergency services, a nationally implemented trauma system with requirements to pre- and in-hospital services and a national trauma registry with high individual level coverage from all trauma-receiving hospitals. Further exploration and a deeper understanding of these differences is warranted.