ReviewInjury2023
Who benefits from resuscitative thoracotomies following penetrating trauma: The patient or the learner?
Review in Injury, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resuscitative thoracotomy in traumatic cardiac arrest : Multisociety consensus recommendations for settings with a low prevalence of penetrating injuries.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Pooled it
- Unlocking survival in traumatic cardiac arrest: global insights, innovations, and unmet needs.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Traumatic Cardiac Arrest-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is a salvage procedure following traumatic cardiac arrest. We aim to evaluate RT trends and outcomes in adults with cardiac arrest following penetrating trauma to determine the effect on mortality in this population. Further, we aim to estimate the effect of hospital teaching status on the performance of resuscitative thoracotomies and mortality.
methodsWe reviewed the National Trauma Data Bank (2017-2021) for adults (≥16 years old) with penetrating trauma and prehospital cardiac arrest, stratified by the performance of a RT. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the effect of RT on mortality and the effect of hospital teaching status on the performance of resuscitative thoracotomies and mortality.
results13,115 patients met our inclusion criteria. RT occurred in 12.7% (n = 1,664) of patients. Rates of RT trended up over the study period. Crude mortality was similar in RT and Non-RT patients (95.6% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in the adjusted odds of mortality based on RT status (OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.56-1.21). University-teaching hospitals had an adjusted odds ratio of 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.17) for performing a RT than non-teaching hospitals. There was no difference in the adjusted odds of mortality in patients that underwent RT based on hospital teaching status.
conclusionDespite up-trending rates, a resuscitative thoracotomy may not improve mortality in adults with penetrating, traumatic cardiac arrest. University teaching hospitals are nearly twice as likely to perform a RT than non-teaching hospitals, with no subsequent improvement in mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.