Ben L Zarzaur1, Teresa Bell2. 1. Department of Surgery, Center for Outcomes Research in Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: bzarzaur@iupui.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Center for Outcomes Research in Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent focus on patient-centered outcomes highlights the need to better describe recovery trajectories after injury. The purpose of this study was to characterize recovery trajectory subtypes that exist after non-neurologic injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort of 500 adults with an Injury Severity Score > 10 but without traumatic brain or spinal cord injury from 2009 to 2011 was formed. The Short Form-36 was administered at admission and repeated at 1, 2, 4, and 12 mo after injury. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to determine the number and shape of physical composite score (PCS) and mental composite score (MCS) trajectories. RESULTS: Three PCS trajectories and five MCS trajectories were identified. For PCS, trajectory 1 (10.4%) has low baseline scores, followed by no improvement over time. Trajectory 2 (65.6%) declines 1 mo after injury then improves over time. Trajectory 3 (24.1%) has a sharp decline followed by rapid recovery. For MCS, trajectory 1 (9.4%) is low at baseline and remains low. Trajectory 2 (14.4%) has a large decrease after injury and does not recover over the next 12 mo. Trajectory 3 (22.7%) has an initial decrease in MCS early, followed by continuous recovery. Trajectory 4 (19.1%) has a steady decline over the study period. Trajectory 5 (34.3%) stays consistently high at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery after injury is complex and results in multiple recovery trajectories. This has implications for patient-centered clinical trial design and in development of patient-specific interventions to improve outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The recent focus on patient-centered outcomes highlights the need to better describe recovery trajectories after injury. The purpose of this study was to characterize recovery trajectory subtypes that exist after non-neurologic injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort of 500 adults with an Injury Severity Score > 10 but without traumatic brain or spinal cord injury from 2009 to 2011 was formed. The Short Form-36 was administered at admission and repeated at 1, 2, 4, and 12 mo after injury. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to determine the number and shape of physical composite score (PCS) and mental composite score (MCS) trajectories. RESULTS: Three PCS trajectories and five MCS trajectories were identified. For PCS, trajectory 1 (10.4%) has low baseline scores, followed by no improvement over time. Trajectory 2 (65.6%) declines 1 mo after injury then improves over time. Trajectory 3 (24.1%) has a sharp decline followed by rapid recovery. For MCS, trajectory 1 (9.4%) is low at baseline and remains low. Trajectory 2 (14.4%) has a large decrease after injury and does not recover over the next 12 mo. Trajectory 3 (22.7%) has an initial decrease in MCS early, followed by continuous recovery. Trajectory 4 (19.1%) has a steady decline over the study period. Trajectory 5 (34.3%) stays consistently high at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery after injury is complex and results in multiple recovery trajectories. This has implications for patient-centered clinical trial design and in development of patient-specific interventions to improve outcomes.
Authors: Ellen J MacKenzie; Melissa L McCarthy; John F Ditunno; Carol Forrester-Staz; Gary S Gruen; Donald W Marion; William C Schwab Journal: J Trauma Date: 2002-03
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Kurt Kroenke; Steven R Counsell; Hugh C Hendrie; Anthony J Perkins; Wayne Katon; Polly Hitchcock Noel; Linda Harpole; Enid M Hunkeler; Jürgen Unützer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Randall S Burd; Aaron R Jensen; John M VanBuren; Jessica S Alvey; Rachel Richards; Richard Holubkov; Murray M Pollack Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Teresa M Bell; Jodi L Raymond; Alejandro C Mongalo; Zachary W Adams; Thomas M Rouse; LeRanna Hatcher; Katie Russell; Aaron E Carroll Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Nena Kruithof; Suzanne Polinder; Leonie de Munter; Cornelis L P van de Ree; Koen W W Lansink; Mariska A C de Jongh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A J L M Geraerds; Amy Richardson; Juanita Haagsma; Sarah Derrett; Suzanne Polinder Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Eva Visser; Brenda Leontine Den Oudsten; Taco Gosens; Paul Lodder; Jolanda De Vries Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 4.147