|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: Trauma centers reported illicit amphetamine use in approximately 10% of trauma admissions in the previous decade. From experience at a trauma center located in a southwestern metropolis, our perception is that illicit amphetamine use is on the rise, and that these patients utilize in-hospital resources beyond what would be expected for their injuries. The purpose of this study was to document the incidence of illicit amphetamine use among our trauma patients and to evaluate its impact on resource utilization.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 7 consecutive years of data (starting July 2010) from our institution's trauma registry. Toxicology screenings were used to categorize patients into one of three groups: illicit amphetamine, other drugs, or drug free. Adjusted linear and logistic regression models were used to predict hospital cost, length of stay, ICU admission and ventilation between drug groups. Models were conducted with combined injury severity (ISS) and then repeated for ISS <9, ISS 9-15 and ISS 16 and above.
RESULTS: 8,589 patients were categorized into the following three toxicology groups: 1255 (14.6%) illicit amphetamine, 2214 (25.8%) other drugs, and 5120 (59.6%) drug free. Illicit amphetamine use increased threefold over the course of the study (from 7.85% to 25.0% of annual trauma admissions). Adjusted linear models demonstrated that illicit amphetamine among patients with ISS<9 was associated with 4.6% increase in hospital cost (P=.019) and 7.4% increase in LOS (P=.043). Logistic models revealed significantly increased odds of ventilation across all ISS groups and increased odds of ICU admission when all ISS groups were combined (P=.001) and within the ISS<9 group (P=.002).
CONCLUSION: Hospital resource utilization of amphetamine patients with minor injuries is significant. Trauma centers with similar epidemic growth in proportion of amphetamine patients face a potentially significant resource strain relative to other centers. STUDY TYPE: Prognostic and Epidemiological LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Language: en |