3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Obesity is an independent risk factor of mortality in severely injured blunt trauma patients

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 139, 期 9, 页码 983-987

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.139.9.983

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in critically injured blunt trauma patients. Design: Case-control study of all critically injured blunt trauma patients between January 2002 and December 2002. Setting: Academic level I trauma center at a county referral hospital. Patients: Two hundred forty-two consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit following blunt trauma. Patients were divided into 2 groups by body mass index. The obese group was defined as having a body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or higher, and the nonobese group was defined as having a body mass index lower than 30 kg/m(2). Main Outcome Measures: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for mortality. Complications and length of stay were also evaluated. Results: Of the 242 patients, 63 (26%) were obese, and 179 (74%) were nonobese. The obese and nonobese groups were similar with regard to age (mean +/-SD, 49+/-18 years vs 45 22 years), male sex (63% vs 72%), Glasgow Coma Scale score (mean +/-SD, 11+/-5 vs 11+/-5), and injury severity score (mean +/-SD, 21+/-13 vs 20+/-14). The obese group had a higher body mass index (mean +/-SD, 35+/-7 vs 24 3; P<.001). Mechanisms of injury and injury patterns were similar between groups. The obese group had a higher incidence of multiple organ failure (13% vs 3%; P=.02) and mortalfty (32% vs 16%; P=.008). Obesity was an independent predictor of mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-19.6; P=.003). Conclusions: Critically injured obese trauma patients have similar demographics and injury patterns as nonobese patients. Obesity is an independent predictor of mortality following severe blunt trauma.

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

3.9
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