Evidence Hub

Association of central capillary refill time with mortality in adult trauma patients: a secondary analysis of the crash-2 randomised controlled trial data

Jegerlehner S, Harris T, Mueller M, Bloom B

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025

20,207 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trauma-related injuries account for up to 4.4 million deaths annually worldwide. Failure to identify haemorrhage in trauma patients increases mortality. This study examines the association of central capillary refill time (CRT) and mortality in adult trauma patients, especially in the subgroup with normal heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP).

METHODS: This retrospective observational study analysed data from the CRASH-2 trial, conducted in 274 hospitals across 40 countries and 5 continents between May 2005 and January 2010. A total of 19,054 out of 20,207 adult trauma patients with recorded CRT and complete dataset were included. CRT was taken centrally (sternum) and categorized as ≤ 2, 3-4, and ≥ 5 s. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, while secondary outcomes included need for transfusion, surgical intervention and thromboembolic events. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were conducted, incorporating random effects for continent/cluster. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the discriminatory ability of central CRT measurement.

RESULTS: Among the patients, 6,756 (35.5%) had a CRT ≤ 2 s, 9,142 (48%) had a CRT of 3-4 s, and 3,156 (16.6%) had a CRT ≥ 5 s. Compared to the reference category (CRT ≤ 2 s), the odds of death were significantly higher in patients with CRT of 3-4 s (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.6-1.9) and CRT ≥ 5 s (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.8-3.5). Higher CRT was also associated with an increased likelihood of blood…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20,207 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free