Trauma Center Level and Mortality in Injured Patients with Shock or Multisystem Trauma

BACKGROUND: Level I and Level II trauma centers share similar clinical verification standards, but differences in volume, subspecialty integration, and transfer patterns may affect outcomes for the highest-risk injured patients. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study database from 1999-2023. Patients aged ≥16 years treated at established Level I or Level II trauma centers with ISS >9, transfer to a trauma center, or death at a trauma center were included. Patients treated at centers that changed level, Level III/IV centers, burns, age <16 years, ISS <9, and transfers out were excluded from comparative outcome analyses. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, GCS, presenting vital signs, mechanism, AIS, ISS, transfer status, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 363,470 patients, 247,800 (68.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 115,670 (31.8%) at Level II centers across 11 Level I and 16 Level II facilities. The proportion treated at Level II centers increased from 23.5% in 1999 to 45.2% in 2023. Level I centers treated younger, more severely injured patients and higher proportions transferred in, presenting in shock, or sustaining blunt multisystem or penetrating truncal injury. Overall mortality was 7.7%, with unadjusted mortality of 8.2% at Level I vs 6.9% at Level II centers. After adjustment, mortality did not differ overall. However, Level I centers had lower adjusted mortality among patients with blunt multisystem trauma and those presenting in shock; no adjusted mortality difference was observed for penetrating truncal injury, isolated traumatic brain injury, or ISS strata. CONCLUSIONS: In this mature statewide trauma system, Level I and Level II centers had similar adjusted overall mortality, but Level I centers demonstrated a survival advantage for shock and blunt multisystem trauma. These findings support targeted triage and early-transfer strategies for physiologically unstable and complex blunt-injury patients.EQUATOR Guidelines - STROBE guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Published
2026-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000002078
Primary Topic
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trauma Center Level and Mortality in Injured Patients with Shock or Multisystem Trauma

Niels D. Martin, Mark John Seamon, Jamie Song, Patrick M. Reilly et al.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
article

Trauma Center Level and Mortality in Injured Patients with Shock or Multisystem Trauma

Niels D. Martin, Mark John Seamon, Jamie Song, Patrick M. Reilly, Patrick K. Kim, Christopher J. McLaughlin, Juliet Kern, Elinore J Kaufman, Kristen Chreiman
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Level I and Level II trauma centers share similar clinical verification standards, but differences in volume, subspecialty integration, and transfer patterns may affect outcomes for the highest-risk injured patients. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study database from 1999-2023. Patients aged ≥16 years treated at established Level I or Level II trauma centers with ISS >9, transfer to a trauma center, or death at a trauma center were included. Patients treated at centers that changed level, Level III/IV centers, burns, age <16 years, ISS <9, and transfers out were excluded from comparative outcome analyses. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, GCS, presenting vital signs, mechanism, AIS, ISS, transfer status, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 363,470 patients, 247,800 (68.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 115,670 (31.8%) at Level II centers across 11 Level I and 16 Level II facilities. The proportion treated at Level II centers increased from 23.5% in 1999 to 45.2% in 2023. Level I centers treated younger, more severely injured patients and higher proportions transferred in, presenting in shock, or sustaining blunt multisystem or penetrating truncal injury. Overall mortality was 7.7%, with unadjusted mortality of 8.2% at Level I vs 6.9% at Level II centers. After adjustment, mortality did not differ overall. However, Level I centers had lower adjusted mortality among patients with blunt multisystem trauma and those presenting in shock; no adjusted mortality difference was observed for penetrating truncal injury, isolated traumatic brain injury, or ISS strata. CONCLUSIONS: In this mature statewide trauma system, Level I and Level II centers had similar adjusted overall mortality, but Level I centers demonstrated a survival advantage for shock and blunt multisystem trauma. These findings support targeted triage and early-transfer strategies for physiologically unstable and complex blunt-injury patients.EQUATOR Guidelines - STROBE guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons
University City Science Center (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.