4.4 Article

Critical care resource use, cost, and mortality associated with firearm-related injuries in US children's hospitals

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 55, 期 11, 页码 2475-2479

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.02.016

关键词

Firearms; Injuries; Length of stay; Mortality; Pediatric intensive care unit; Resource utilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: To assess trends and resource use attributable to firearm-related injuries in US pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Methods: Retrospective data from Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) database from 2004 to 2017. Results: Of 5,984,938 admissions to 28 children's hospitals, 3707 were for firearm injuries. A total of 1088 of 3707 hospitalizations (29.9%) required PICU admission. Median PICU length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 1-6 days), and the median cost for PICU patients was $37,569.31 (IQR, $19,243.83-$77,856.32). Use of mechanical ventilation (674/ 1088 admissions [61.9%]), surgical procedures (744/1088 admissions [68.3%]), blood transfusions (429/1088 admissions [39.9%]), and intracranial pressure monitoring devices (30/1088 admissions [2.8%]) increased in PICU patients. Computed tomography showed an overall increase (197/287 [68.6%] to 138/177 [78%], P = .037) from 2004 to 2007 to 2016-2017. Mortality among PICU patients (140/1058 [13.23%]) attributable to firearm related injuries increased insignificantly (34/285 (11.93%] to 25/172 [14.53%], P = .746). Conclusions: Using PHIS data, we found a significant increase in median cost per hospitalization and an increase in critical care resource use, including the frequency of invasive mechanical ventilatory assistance, neuromonitoring, operations performed, and transfusion of blood products. Further research is needed to continue to characterize the burden of pediatric critical firearm injury. Type of Study: Retrospective cohort study. Level of Evidence: Level III. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据