ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2026
Door to needle time: has the 2022 ACS VRC interventional radiology readiness standard made a difference?
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Not just another blocked pipe: the trouble with 'door-to-needle' trauma metrics.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In 2022, the revised American College of Surgeons (ACS) Verification Review and Consultation (VRC) standards required that all level I and II trauma centers have the resources for an interventional radiology procedure for hemorrhage control to begin within 60 min of request. We sought to investigate the impact of this new standard on time to angiography and patient outcomes in a national database with the hypothesis that the ACS standard would result in quicker time to angiography and improved outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective review of all patients included in the 2019, 2021 and 2023 ACS Trauma Quality Programs Participant Use File who underwent urgent angiography for hemorrhage control in Level I and II trauma centers. We compared times and outcomes pre-implementation and post implementation of this standard. Results: The time to angiography, as measured from emergency department admission, was comparable before and after the implementation of the standard (1.91, 1.86 and 1.91 hours in 2019, 2021 and 2023 respectively, p=0.159). The cohorts also had no significant difference in mortality (15.3, 14.4 vs 14.8%), total length of stay (LOS) (15.6, 15.8 vs 16.1 days) or intensive care unit LOS (8.2, 8.1 vs 8.3 days). There were significant differences with increased blood product transfusion volumes in 2019 (1,386 (2019), 1,228 (2021) and 1,226 mL (2023), p<0.001) as well as increased whole blood use in 2023 (134 (2021) vs 219 mL (2023), p<0.001). Conclusion: Despite the new VRC standard, there has, to date, been no significant impact on time to angiography or patient outcomes with the possible exception of blood transfusion volumes. Level of evidence: IV: retrospective study with more than one negative criterion.
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.