4.7 Article

Sex Differences in Outcome of Trauma Patients Presented with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216892

Keywords

sex dimorphism; TBI; mortality; ICU; mechanical ventilation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identified an association between sex and outcomes in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, particularly favoring older females by indicating shorter hospital stays.
The objective of this study was to determine whether there is an association between sex and outcome in trauma patients presented with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). A retrospective multicenter study was performed in trauma patients aged >= 16 years who presented with severe TBI (Head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) >= 4) over a 4-year-period. Subgroup analyses were performed for ages 16-44 and >= 45 years. Also, patients with isolated severe TBI (other AIS <= 2) were assessed, likewise, with subgroup analysis for age. Sex differences in mortality, Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), ICU admission/length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mechanical ventilation (MV) were examined. A total of 1566 severe TBI patients were included (831 patients with isolated TBI). Crude analysis shows an association between female sex and lower ICU admission rates, shorter ICU/hospital LOS, and less frequent and shorter MV in severe TBI patients >= 45 years. After adjusting, female sex appears to be associated with shorter ICU/hospital LOS. Sex differences in mortality and GOS were not found. In conclusion, this study found sex differences in patient outcomes following severe TBI, potentially favoring (older) females, which appear to indicate shorter ICU/hospital LOS (adjusted analysis). Large prospective studies are warranted to help unravel sex differences in outcomes after severe TBI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available