Abstract
Background
Crush injury can result in crush syndrome (CS) when the pressure is released from the limb, resulting in ischemia-reperfusion injury and rhabdomyolysis. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the demographics, clinical findings, management, and outcomes of 377 patients admitted as an emergency with a diagnosis of crush syndrome between February 6 and 16, 2023, following the Türkiye-Syria earthquakes.
Material/Methods
This observational study retrospectively analyzed CS patients admitted to the emergency service from February 6 to 16, 2023. We collected data on demographics, vital signs, time under debris, blood parameters, hemodialysis needs, outcomes, hospital stay duration, 7-day mortality, diagnoses, and treatments.
Results
During the study period, 1682 earthquake victims were admitted, with 377 diagnosed with CS included in the study. The mean age was 33.51±0.89 years, with 51.7% male. The mean time under debris was 24.92±1.62 h, and the mean hospital stay was 34.39±1.20 days. Hemodialysis was required for 91 patients (24.1%), and 20 patients (5.3%) died. AKI developed in 23.1% (n=87) of the patients, with 30.5% (n=115) under debris for more than 24 h. Mortality, hospital stay, and AKI rates were higher in those requiring hemodialysis (P<0.001, P=0.003, and P<0.001, respectively).
Conclusions
The study highlights a high incidence of AKI, increased hemodialysis needs, and higher mortality in earthquake-related crush syndrome cases. Longer debris entrapment (over 24 h) was common. Early and aggressive fluid resuscitation, beginning in the field and continuing through hospital care, is crucial. Prioritizing this in disaster planning for field personnel is recommended.
Keywords: Acute Kidney Injury, Disaster Medicine, Disaster Victims, Renal Replacement Therapy, Crush Syndrome
Introduction
The Türkiye-Syria earthquakes of 2023, occurring on February 6th, were devastating natural disasters with magnitudes of 7.8 and 7.5 These powerful quakes caused widespread destruction across southeastern Türkiye and northern Syria, resulting in significant loss of life and extensive injuries [1]. February 6, 2023 will forever be etched in the memories of the Turkish people, marked by the catastrophic earthquakes leaving an indelible mark on millions of lives. On that day, Türkiye experienced 2 of the most destructive earthquakes of the last century. In the early hours of February 6 in the province of Kahramanmaraş in Türkiye, 2 earthquakes originated at a depth of approximately 7 kilometers below the earth’s surface, and a total of 11 020 aftershocks were recorded [2]. These earthquakes affected more than 16 million people in 11 provinces, including Adana, Adiyaman, Diyarbakir, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis, Malatya, Osmaniye, and Şanliurfa. Türkiye suffered extensive damage and was faced with one of the most devastating disasters in centuries. In response to the severity of the situation, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Level 3 emergency following the earthquakes [1,2].
According to the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior (AFAD; Türkiye), the death toll from the earthquakes was 45 089. The gendarmerie, together with people’s own efforts, has successfully evacuated 1 971 589 people from the affected regions, and their details have been documented through requests to governors and district governors. In the provinces affected by the earthquakes, more than 1.5 million buildings have been inspected for damage assessment. Nearly 200 000 of these structures were identified during the emergency response as either severely damaged or in need of demolition [1–3].
Crush syndrome, often occurring when pressure is released from a crushed limb, are severe conditions linked with rhabdomyolysis. The primary cause is prolonged compression of muscle tissue, leading to cellular ischemia and subsequent necrosis [3,4]. Upon decompression, the sudden release of myoglobin, potassium, and other intracellular components into the bloodstream can result in acute kidney injury (AKI), cardiac arrhythmias, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) [3–5]. Crush syndrome, a severe condition resulting from prolonged muscle compression, is closely associated with AKI. In the literature, crush syndrome is often noted for its complex pathophysiology and significant impact on renal function. Studies indicate that the release of myoglobin and other intracellular components from damaged muscle cells can lead to renal tubular obstruction and subsequent AKI [5]. The condition was first extensively described during the London Blitz of WWII, where victims of bombings presented with renal complications due to muscle crush injuries [3,5]. Since then, various natural disasters and war scenarios have reinforced the critical connection between crush injuries and renal failure [6]. The general consensus in the literature underscores the necessity of early intervention and aggressive fluid resuscitation to mitigate the onset of AKI in patients with CS [7]. Furthermore, advancements in renal replacement therapies have improved outcomes, but the mortality and morbidity associated with crush syndrome remain significant [8].
Crush injuries often lead to systemic effects known as crush syndrome (CS). In most similar disasters, there is a notable increase in mortality at the disaster site, and individuals rescued from the rubble often have CS. CS and CS-related acute kidney injury are generally the most common causes of death in hospitals after earthquakes [9–12]. It has been estimated that CS occurs in approximately 2–5% of individuals injured in catastrophic earthquakes and affects 30–50% of patients with traumatic rhabdomyolysis [10–13].
Crush syndrome and CS-related AKI are 2 critical, potentially reversible complications of crush injury [12,13]. Therefore, it is important to clarify the clinical features and provide an overview of the rescue experience with CS and AKI following a major earthquake [6]. All individuals affected by a disaster, regardless of the severity of their injuries, should be considered as having an increased risk of developing CS [11,13].
In our study, we aimed to anticipate factors influencing the development of AKI in patients who admitted to our clinic after the February 6 earthquake in Kahramanmaraş and were followed up with a diagnosis of CS. In addition, as we are located in an earthquake-prone country, we are required to draw attention to rapid and accurate treatment approaches for earthquake victims in potential similar disaster situations.
Material and Methods
Study Design and Setting
Our hospital is situated in the capital city and admits around 500 000 patients annually. It is one of the biggest hospitals in the country, with a total bed capacity of 4190, including 1010 in intensive care. The hospital has treated many earthquake victims in the past, using its own resources and air and ground ambulances.
The study was conducted upon the approval of E1-23-3361 dated 05.04.23 and numbered 3361 of the Number 1 Clinical Applications Ethics Committee of the Ankara Bilkent City Hospital. After receiving approval from the ethics committee, this observational study retrospectively reviewed data of patients who presented to the emergency department between 6 February and 16 February 2023 and were diagnosed with CS. Patients whose data could not be accessed from the hospital’s automated system were excluded from the study. Patient demographics, vital signs, earthquake region of origin, post-earthquake time, time under debris, blood parameters, need for hemodialysis, patient outcome (discharged/deceased), length of hospital stay, 7-day mortality, diagnoses received, and treatment protocols were recorded. Data on the duration of being trapped under rubble were meticulously collected and documented by search and rescue teams operating at the disaster sites. These teams were equipped with specialized tools and protocols to record the time each individual spent trapped under debris. Upon reaching and rescuing the victims, the search and rescue personnel noted the exact duration of entrapment, which was then systematically entered into an automated tracking system for all patients.
Acute kidney injury was diagnosed using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI was defined by an increase in serum creatinine by ≥0.3 mg/dL within 48 h, an increase to ≥1.5 times baseline within the last 7 days, or urine output less than 0.5 mL/kg/h for 6 h [14]. Additionally, the RIFLE and AKIN criteria were used for cross-validation [15]. These criteria ensured consistent and accurate assessment of renal function in all patients.
Our hospital has established a common consensus for many diagnoses due to disasters. The consensus for the diagnosis of crush syndrome was that the creatine kinase (CK) value was increased 3-fold and there was concomitant end-organ damage. Patients were diagnosed with crush syndrome with the same protocol in the entire inpatient services and these patients were included in our study. The treatment consists of aggressive volume replacement followed by forced diuretic therapy, which can combat the shock and resolve the hyperkalemia. If AKI has occurred, regular hemodialysis was indicated.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis of the research was performed using SPSS version 22.0. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard error for continuous variables, and frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were reported. Normal distribution adequacy was assessed through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The chi-square test was applied for comparing categorical variables. In cases where the assumption of normal distribution was not fulfilled for quantitative data, the Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparisons. Spearman correlation analysis was utilized to measure correlation levels. Values with P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Demographics
During the planned study period, 1682 earthquake victims were admitted to the emergency service; 408 of the patients were followed up with a diagnosis of crush syndrome, and 31 patients for whom information could not be accessed from the data automation system were excluded, and 377 patients diagnosed with crush syndrome were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 33.51±0.89 years and 51.7% (n=195) were male. The major sites of crush injury were in the lower extremities (82%), the upper extremities (11%), and the trunk (7%). Limb fractures, pelvic fractures, and abdominal injuries were the most frequently associated injuries. The mean time under debris was 24.92±1.62 h and the mean hospital stay was 34.39±1.20 days. The mean arterial pressure was 89.57±0.60. Hemodialysis was adminstered to 91 patients (24.1%) and 20 patients (5.3%) died. Those with creatinine levels above 2.0 mg/dL and urea levels above 40 mg/dL were considered to have AKI. AKI developed in 23.1% (n=87) of the patients, and 30.5% (n=115) were under debris for more than 24 h. Blood gas, biochemistry, and complete blood count values are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Distribution of age, gender, duration of being trapped under debris, mean arterial blood pressure, blood gas, biochemical and complete blood count parameters.
| Mean±SE/% (n) | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 33.51±0.89 | 2 | 89 |
| Gender % (n) | |||
| Male, No. (%) | 51.7 (195) | ||
| Female, No. (%) | 48.3 (182) | ||
| Duration of being trapped under Debris (hours) | 24.92±1.62 | 1 | 264 |
| Hospitalization furation (days) | 34.39±1.2 | 0 | 68 |
| Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg) | 89.57±0.6 | 50 | 141 |
| Hemodialysis | |||
| Yes | 75.9 (286) | ||
| No | 24.1 (91) | ||
| Outcome | |||
| Discharge | 94.7 (357) | ||
| Deceased | 5.3 (20) | ||
| Acute kidney injury | |||
| No | 76.9 (290) | ||
| Yes | 23.1 (87) | ||
| Duration of being trapped under debris | |||
| Less than 24 hours | 69.5 (262) | ||
| More than 24 hours | 30.5 (115) | ||
| Blood gas | |||
| pH | 7.41±0 | 6.58 | 7.89 |
| HCO3 (mmol/L) | 23.39±0.26 | 2.54 | 34.9 |
| Base defisite (mEq/L) | −0.82±0.3 | −26 | 11.9 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 2.09±0.09 | 0.33 | 20.4 |
| Biochemical results | |||
| Creatine kinase (IU/L) | 20,738.17±2,214.01 | 14.02 | 360,663 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.5±0.1 | 0 | 20 |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 59.53±3.56 | 2 | 765 |
| AST (U/L) | 560.64±53.9 | 11 | 10,595 |
| ALT (U/L) | 209.37±17.52 | 9 | 3,482 |
| LDH (U/L) | 1,071.2±73.36 | 145 | 12,723 |
| K (mEq/L) | 4.43±0.04 | 2.5 | 8.9 |
| Na (mEq/L) | 140.6±3.43 | 118 | 1,427.9 |
| Ca (mg/dL) | 7.13±0.04 | 1.3 | 10 |
| P (mg/dL) | 4.29±0.13 | 1 | 19.6 |
| Complete blood count (CBC) | |||
| Hb (g/L) | 11.66±0.13 | 4.5 | 21.9 |
| WBC (×109/L) | 13.73±0.54 | 1.2 | 173 |
| PLT (×109/L) | 297.95±9.06 | 9.4 | 2,246 |
SE – standard errors, % – frequency.
Laboratory Parameters
Patients’ laboratory parameters were compared with their requirement for hemodialysis (Table 2). Accordingly, those requiring dialysis had lower pH, HCO3, base excess, sodium, calcium, hemoglobin and PLT values (P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P=0.002, and P=0.001, respectively), whereas creatine kinase, creatinine, urea, AST, ALT, LDH, potassium, phosphorus and white blood cell values were higher (P<0.001).
Table 2.
The relationship between laboratory parameters and patients’ need for hemodialysis.
| Received hemodialysis n=286 Median (min-max) |
Did not receive hemodialysis n=91 Median (min-max) |
p* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 31 (2–89) | 32 (4–86) | 0.374 |
| Duration of being trapped under debris (hours) | 9 (1–178) | 12 (2–264) | 0.728 |
| Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg) | 86 (57–141) | 88 (50–120) | 0.449 |
| Blood gas | |||
| pH | 7.43 (6.58–7.89) | 7.4 (6.88–7.56) | <0.001 |
| HCO3 (mmol/L) | 24.95 (2.54–34.9) | 21.2 (4.2–33.1) | <0.001 |
| Base defisite (mEq/L) | 0.9 (−26–11.9) | −3 (−26–10) | <0.001 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 1.66 (0.54–20.4) | 1.55 (0.33–13) | 0.947 |
| Biochemical results | |||
| Creatine kinase (IU/L) | 3,895 (14–220,020) | 8,941 (18–360,663) | <0.001 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.55 (0–20) | 3.63 (0.29–10.65) | <0.001 |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 28 (2–765) | 112 (13–394) | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 177 (11–10,595) | 410 (16–8,748) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 103 (15–3,208) | 201 (9–3,482) | <0.001 |
| LDH (U/L) | 543 (145–7,607) | 1,087 (257–12,723) | <0.001 |
| K (mEq/L) | 4.1 (2.5–7.93) | 4.9 (2.7–8.9) | <0.001 |
| Na (mEq/L) | 139 (127) | 133 (118–156) | <0.001 |
| Ca (mg/dL) | 8.4 (1.3–10) | 7.6 (5.8–9.1) | <0.001 |
| P (mg/dL) | 3.3 (1–19.6) | 6 (1.1–19.5) | <0.001 |
| Complete blood count (CBC) | |||
| Hb (g/L) | 11.8 (4.5–20.3) | 10.2 (7.1–21.9) | 0.002 |
| WBC (×109/L) | 10.7 (4.27–173) | 14.7 (1.2–46.3) | <0.001 |
| PLT (×109/L) | 265 (9.4–2,246) | 228 (55–1,095) | 0.001 |
Mann-Whitney U Test; min – minimum; max – maksimum.
Outcome of Patients
We assessed the correlation between the outcome of patients receiving hemodialysis, the duration of hospital stay, the prevalence of acute kidney injury, and the duration of being buried under debris (Table 3). The mortality rate was higher in those who received hemodialysis, as were the rates of both hospital stay and acute kidney injury (P<0.001, P=0.003, and P<0.001, respectively). Those who remained buried under debris for more than 24 h had a lower rate of receiving hemodialysis (P=0.043).
Table 3.
The relationship between the outcome of patients, hospitalization duration, acute kidney ınjury (AKI), and duration under debris with hemodialysis.
| Received hemodialysis n=286 % (n) |
Did not receive hemodialysis n=91 % (n) |
p * | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | <0.001 | ||
| Discharge | 77.9 (278) | 22.1 (79) | |
| Deceased | 40.0 (8) | 60.0 (12) | |
| Hospitalization duration (hours) (median (min-max) | 27.5 (0–68) | 48.0 (1–68) | 0.003** |
| Acute kidney injury | <0.001 | ||
| No | 92.4 (268) | 7.6 (22) | |
| Yes | 20.7 (18) | 79.3 (69) | |
| Duration of being trapped under debris | 0.043 | ||
| Less than 24 hours | 72.9 (191) | 27.1 (71) | |
| More than 24 hours | 82.6 (95) | 17.4 (20) |
: Ki-Kare Test;
: Mann-Whitney U Test, % – frequency.
When assessing the impact of renal markers on outcome deceased patients had lower pH and calcium levels (P=0.002 and P=0.006), while creatinine, urea, potassium, and phosphorus levels were higher (P=0.001, P<0.001, P=0.007, and P<0.001 respectively) (Table 4).
Table 4.
The effect of renal markers on patients outcomes.
| Outcome Median (min-max) |
P * | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Discharge | Deceased | ||
| Renal markers | |||
| pH | 7.42 (6.87–7.89) | 7.22 (6.58–7.57) | 0.002 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.6 (0.06–20) | 2.55 (0.1–3.99) | 0.001 |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 32 (2–765) | 83.5 (21–244) | <0.001 |
| K (mEq/L) | 4.2 (2.7–8.2) | 5.4 (2.5–8.9) | 0.007 |
| Na (mEq/L) | 138 (120–154) | 138 (118–156) | 0.264 |
| Ca (mg/dL) | 8.3 (5.9–10) | 8 (1.3–9.1) | 0.006 |
| P (mg/dL) | 3.5 (1–16.5) | 6.2 (2–19.6) | <0.001 |
Mann-Whitney U Test; min – minimum; max – maximum.
Correlation analysis was performed between laboratory values and other study parameters (Table 5). It was observed that with increasing age, pH, creatine kinase, AST, ALT, LDH, phosphorus, WBC and PLT values decreased (P=0.006, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P=0.033, and P=0.002, respectively), while creatinine, urea, and sodium values increased (P<0.001, P<0.001, and P<0.001, respectively). As the duration of remaining buried under debris increased, pH, base excess, AST, ALT, and LDH values increased (P<0.001, P=0.005, P=0.017, P=0.015, and P=0.020, respectively), while creatinine and calcium values decreased (P=0.006 and P=0.009, respectively). High creatinine, sodium, calcium, and hemoglobin values were associated with shorter hospital stay (P=0.044, P<0.001, P<0.001, and P<0.001, respectively), while high AST, ALT, LDH, WBC, and PLT values was associated with longer hospital stay (P=0.008, P=0.008, P<0.001, P<0.001, and P=0.023, respectively).
Table 5.
Correlation analysis of laboratory parameters with age, duration of being trapped under debris and hospitalization duration.
| Age | Duration of being trapped under debris | Hospitalization duration | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood gas | ||||
| pH | r | −0.143 | 0.219 | 0.082 |
| p* | 0.006 | <0.001 | 0.114 | |
| HCO3 (mmol/L) | r | 0.021 | 0.096 | −0.008 |
| p* | 0.681 | 0.063 | 0.871 | |
| Base defisite (mEq/L) | r | −0.043 | 0.144 | 0.051 |
| p* | 0.410 | 0.005 | 0.327 | |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | r | −0.016 | 0.065 | −0.049 |
| p* | 0.754 | 0.206 | 0.346 | |
| Biochemical results | ||||
| Creatine kinase (IU/L) | r | −0.222 | 0.042 | 0.095 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.412 | 0.066 | |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | r | 0.292 | −0.141 | −0.104 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.006 | 0.044 | |
| Urea (mg/dL) | r | 0.211 | −0.030 | 0.001 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.566 | 0.984 | |
| AST (U/L) | r | −0.248 | 0.123 | 0.137 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.017 | 0.008 | |
| ALT (U/L) | r | −0.266 | 0.126 | 0.136 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.015 | 0.008 | |
| LDH (U/L) | r | −0.252 | 0.120 | 0.205 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.020 | <0.001 | |
| K (mEq/L) | r | −0.042 | −0.078 | 0.010 |
| p* | 0.421 | 0.129 | 0.853 | |
| Na (mEq/L) | r | 0.227 | −0.077 | −0.259 |
| p* | <0.001 | 0.134 | <0.001 | |
| Ca (mg/dL) | r | −0.042 | −0.135 | −0.245 |
| p* | 0.411 | 0.009 | <0.001 | |
| P (mg/dL) | r | −0.164 | −0.132 | 0.033 |
| p* | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.521 | |
| Complete blood count (CBC) | ||||
| Hb (g/L) | r | 0.004 | −0.064 | −0.296 |
| p* | 0.939 | 0.211 | <0.001 | |
| WBC (×109/L) | r | −0.110 | 0.255 | 0.253 |
| p* | 0.033 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| PLT (×109/L) | r | −0.159 | 0.091 | 0.117 |
| p* | 0.002 | 0.078 | 0.023 |
Spearman correlation analysis.
In patients with AKI, pH, HCO3, base excess, sodium, calcium, hemoglobin (P=0.006) and PLT were lower (P<0.001), whereas creatine kinase, creatinine, urea, AST, ALT, LDH, potassium, phosphorus and WBC were higher (P<0.001) (Table 6).
Table 6.
The relationship between laboratory parameters and acute kidney ınjury (AKI).
| Without AKI n=290 Median (min-max) |
With AKI n=87 Median (min-max) |
P * | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 31 (2–89) | 34 (9–86) | 0.208 |
| Duration of being trapped under debris (hours) | 10 (1–264) | 9 (1–120) | 0.064 |
| Hospitalization duration (days) | 31 (0–68) | 35 (0–68) | 0.413 |
| Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg) | 86 (57–141) | 90 (50–120) | 0.190 |
| Blood gas | |||
| pH | 7.43 (7.17–7.89) | 7.38 (6.58–7.54) | <0.001 |
| HCO3 (mmol/L) | 25 (2.54–34.9) | 20.5 (4.2–33.1) | <0.001 |
| Base defisite (mEq/L) | 1.0 (−16–11.9) | −3.6 (−26–8) | <0.001 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 1.69 (0.54–7.18) | 1.48 (0.33–20.4) | 0.275 |
| Biochemical results | |||
| Creatine kinase (IU/L) | 3,758 (14–220,020) | 12,938 (91–360,663) | <0.001 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.53 (0–1.88) | 3.88 (1.92–20.0) | <0.001 |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 27.5 (2–765) | 120 (15–514) | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 172.5 (11–10,595) | 491 (22–8,748) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 102 (9–827) | 220 (14–3,482) | <0.001 |
| LDH (U/L) | 534 (145–6,636) | 1,148 (271–12,723) | <0.001 |
| K (mEq/L) | 4.1 (2.5–7.00) | 4.9 (2.7–8.9) | <0.001 |
| Na (mEq/L) | 139 (123–1,427) | 132 (118–156) | <0.001 |
| Ca (mg/dL) | 8.4 (5.9–10) | 7.6 (1.3–9.1) | <0.001 |
| P (mg/dL) | 3.3 (1–13.7) | 6.1 (1.7–19.6) | <0.001 |
| Complete blood count (CBC) | |||
| Hb (g/L) | 11.7 (4.5–19.4) | 10.4 (7.1–21.9) | 0.006 |
| Wbc (×109/L) | 10.84 (4.27–173) | 14.7 (1.2–46.3) | <0.001 |
| Plt (×109/L) | 278 (9.4–2,246) | 214 (30–619) | <0.001 |
Mann-Whitney U Test; min – minimum; max – maximum; AKI – acute kidney injury.
Remaining buried more than 24 h under debris was associated with longer hospital stay and higher pH, HCO3, base excess, WBC, and PLT values (P=0.010, P<0.001, P=0.007, P<0.001, P<0.001 and P=0.018, respectively), whereas creatinine, urea, and phosphorus values were lower (P<0.001, P=0.021 and P=0.001, respectively) (Table 7).
Table 7.
The relationship between laboratory parameters and being trapped under debris for more than 24 hours.
| Less than 24 hours n=262 Median (min-max) |
More than 24 hours n=115 Median (min-max) |
P * | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| Duration of being trapped under debris (hours) | 31 (2–86) | 33 (4–89) | 0.244 |
| Hospitalization duration (days) | 27.5 (0–68) | 45 (1–68) | 0.010 |
| Mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg) | 86 (50–140) | 86 (57–141) | 0.324 |
| Blood gas | |||
| pH | 7.42 (6.58–7.89) | 7.45 (6.9–7.6) | <0.001 |
| HCO3 (mmol/L) | 24 (2.54–34) | 25.5 (6.6–34.9) | 0.007 |
| Base defisite (mEq/L) | 0 (−26–10) | 2 (−24–11.9) | <0.001 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 1.63 (0.33–20.4) | 1.78 (0.73–13) | 0.115 |
| Biochemical results | |||
| Creatine kinase (IU/L) | 4,950 (14–360,663) | 4,436 (49–210,621) | 0.557 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.68 (0–8.43) | 0.53 (0–20.0) | <0.001 |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 36 (4–765) | 30 (2–394) | 0.021 |
| AST (U/L) | 205 (12–5,373) | 241 (11–10,595) | 0.286 |
| ALT (U/L) | 108 (9–3,208) | 123 (14–3,482) | 0.112 |
| LDH (U/L) | 629 (204–12,723) | 620 (145–7,804) | 0.544 |
| K (mEq/L) | 4.2 (2.7–8.2) | 4.1 (2.5–8.9) | 0.098 |
| Na (mEq/L) | 138 (118–1,427) | 137 (126–159) | 0.708 |
| Ca (mg/dL) | 8.3 (1.3–10) | 8.3 (5.8–9.6) | 0.183 |
| P (mg/dL) | 3.7 (1.4–19.6) | 3.4 (1–17.8) | 0.001 |
| Complete blood count (CBC) | |||
| Hb (g/L) | 11.5 (4.5–21.9) | 11.3 (7.4–18.6) | 0.789 |
| Wbc (×109/L) | 10.75 (1.2–46.3) | 13.48 (6.2–173) | <0.001 |
| Plt (×109/L) | 252 (9.4–1,095) | 282 (55–2,246) | 0.018 |
Mann-Whitney U Test; min – minimum; max – maximum.
Discussion
The study findings provide a detailed overview of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of earthquake victims diagnosed with crush syndrome. Of the 1682 patients admitted, 377 were included after excluding those with incomplete data. Most injuries involved the lower extremities (82%), and the mean time buried under debris was approximately 25 h. The results showed significant metabolic and renal disturbances in patients requiring hemodialysis, with lower levels of pH, HCO3, sodium, calcium, hemoglobin, and platelets, and higher levels of creatinine, urea, potassium, and other markers [16]. The mortality rate was higher among those needing hemodialysis, indicating severe renal involvement [17]. Notably, patients trapped under debris for more than 24 h had a higher likelihood of prolonged hospital stays and biochemical imbalances, yet a lower rate of hemodialysis, suggesting a complex interaction between injury duration and renal function [18,19]. Age-related trends showed older patients had worse metabolic and renal profiles, further emphasizing the need for early and aggressive management in crush syndrome cases to improve outcomes.
The most frequent cause of deaths in hospital after earthquakes is generally attributable to CS and CS-associated AKI [4–7]. In our study, 377 (22.4%) patients were diagnosed with crush syndrome (CS). A significant majority of those diagnosed with CS (24.1%) required hemodialysis, 23.1% of the patients were diagnosed with AKI, and 5.3% of patients died. Unfortunately, the patients were found to have been remained under debris for prolonged periods. In total, 30.5% of patients had a duration of remaining under debris of more than 24 h, and the average duration under debris was 24.92 h. The occurrence of AKI related to crush injuries and the need for dialysis in such cases have shown considerable variation across different studies [19–23]. In previous earthquakes, the average proportions of CS and hemodialysis were 1.4% and 0.88%, respectively, when compared to the total number of deaths [8]. According to a report from Bam, Iran, 6.5% of 1975 hospitalized patients required hemodialysis. Most of the individuals were rescued within 4 h, and this brief time spent buried under debris may partially account for the comparatively lower need for dialysis in Bam compared to other reported cases [21]. Significantly elevated rates of hemodialysis requirement were observed in 2 different catastrophic earthquakes: 54% in the Kobe earthquake and 75% in the Marmara earthquake [22,23].
Our study has revealed that patients were buried under debris significantly longer than in other earthquakes, which was associated with higher mortality rates, longer hospital stays, and requirement for hemodialysis. These results are similar to those of another major earthquake in our country [3,4,23], indicating that preventive measures for crush syndrome, a preventable cause, have not been implemented and lessons from past disasters have not been learned. In the event of a disaster, precautionary measures are required to be implemented for individuals affected by crush injuries, at the disaster site, in field hospitals, during transportation to medical facilities, and upon admission to regular hospitals. The primary preventive action at the disaster site involves addressing volume depletion [24–26]. When engaging in volume resuscitation, it is crucial to carefully consider factors such as the timing and rate of fluid administration and the quantity and type of fluids administered [25].
Despite receiving regular and rigorous follow-ups and treatments from the moment they presented to our hospital, patients diagnosed with CS had a high need for hemodialysis and had high mortality due to the long time buried under debris and the delayed initiation of treatment. Studies suggest that aggressive fluid therapy should be initiated early, before and during rescue, as this has been associated with reduced CS complications [27]. In disaster situations, it is essential to inform healthcare professionals working in the field about the significance of early and aggressive fluid therapy, which should begin before hospital admission, in the field, before and during extrication, and afterward. We recommend that each hospital establishes its own disaster plan, organizes training sessions for field personnel that include current treatment approaches, and repeats this training at regular intervals.
Our study has revealed a significant correlation between low pH and calcium, high creatinine, urea, potassium, and phosphorus with mortality, similar to other studies [4,28]. Additionally, low pH and HCO3 were associated with high creatine kinase, creatinine, urea, AST, ALT, LDH, potassium, and phosphorus values in CS patients, indicating the development of AKI. Patients who remained buried under debris for more than 24 h tended to have abnormal blood parameters, which could lead to the development of AKI. These easily assessable blood parameters should serve as indicators for healthcare professionals to predict mortality and plan treatment [4,29].
Limitations
A protocol specific to our hospital has been established for the diagnosis of crush syndrome. This may create a limitation in terms of comparison with other studies. The treatments initiated in the earthquake zone are not clear. The study has limitations due to its retrospective design and being conducted at a single center. There is a need for multi-centered studies that collect data from all earthquake victims.
Conclusions
Overall, these results emphasize the importance of early and aggressive management of crush syndrome, particularly in monitoring renal function and biochemical markers, to improve patient outcomes. The study provides valuable insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying crush syndrome and highlights critical factors influencing the prognosis of affected patients. We observed a high incidence of acute kidney injury in these patients, as well as a high requirement for hemodialysis and high mortality. Most earthquake victims remained under debris for over 24 h. We are confident that early aggressive fluid replacement treatments can prevent this situation. These treatments should be initiated before hospital admission, in the field, before and during extrication, and afterward. Hospitals need to emphasize the importance of early fluid therapy in their disaster planning for field personnel and should regularly provide up-to-date information.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: None declared
Publisher’s note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher
Ethics Committee Approval: The study was conducted with the approval of E1-23-3361 dated 05.04.23 and numbered 3361 of the Number 1 Clinical Applications Ethics Committee of the Ankara Bilkent City Hospital.
Financial support: None declared
References
- 1.Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) Press Bulletin-36 about the Earthquake in Kahramanmaraş. Mar 1, 2023. Available from: https://en.afad.gov.tr/press-bulletin-36-about-the-earthquake-in-kahramanmaras.
- 2.World Health Organization (WHO) Earthquake in Türkiye and the Syrian Arab Republic. Dec 25, 2023. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/Earthquake-Tükiye-Syria.
- 3.Döven SS, Tezol Ö, Yeşil E, et al. The 2023 Türkiye-Syria earthquakes: Analysis of pediatric victims with crush syndrome and acute kidney injury. Pediatr Nephrol. 2024;39(7):2209–15. doi: 10.1007/s00467-024-06307-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Terzi O, Dundar C. The problem of unaccompanied children in the earthquake; Insufficient enrollment. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023 doi: 10.1017/dmp.2023.34. [Online ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bywaters EG, Beall D. Crush ınjuries with ımpairment of renal function. Br Med J. 1941;1(4185):427–32. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.4185.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. Clinical findings in the renal victims of a catastrophic disaster: The Marmara earthquake. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17(11):1942–49. doi: 10.1093/ndt/17.11.1942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Better OS, Abassi ZA. Early fluid resuscitation in patients with rhabdomyolysis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2011;7(7):416–22. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2011.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Michaelson M, Taitelman U, Bursztein S. Management of crush syndrome. Resuscitation. 1984;12(2):141–46. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(84)90065-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vanholder R, Sever MS, Erek E, et al. Acute kidney injury related to the crush syndrome: Towards an era of seismo-nephrology? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000;15:1517–21. doi: 10.1093/ndt/15.10.1517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bartal C, Zeller L, Miskin I, et al. Crush syndrome: saving more lives in disasters: Lessons learned from the early-response phase in Haiti. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:694. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. The Marmara earthquake: Epidemiological analysis of the victims with nephrological problems. Kidney Int. 2001;60:1114. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031114.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Buyurgan ÇS, Bozkurt Babuş S, Yarkaç A, et al. Demographic and clinical characteristics of earthquake victims presented to the Emergency Department with and without crush injury upon the 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquake. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2023;38(6):707–15. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X23006416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sever MS, Vanholder R, Lameire N. Management of crush-related injuries after disasters. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1052–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179–84. doi: 10.1159/000339789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, et al. Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup. Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care. 2004;8(4):R204–12. doi: 10.1186/cc2872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Vanholder R, Van Biesen W, Lameire N, Sever MS International Society of Nephrology/Renal Disaster Relief Task Force. The role of the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Disaster Relief Task Force in the rescue of renal disaster victims. Contrib Nephrol. 2007;156:325–32. doi: 10.1159/000102123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Better OS, Abassi ZA. Early fluid resuscitation in patients with rhabdomyolysis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2011;7(7):416–22. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2011.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shi D, Liang F, Qiao J, et al. A Novel non-contact detection and identification method for the post-disaster compression state of injured individuals using UWB Bio-Radar. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023;10(8):905. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10080905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Long B, Liang SY, Gottlieb M. Crush injury and syndrome: A review for emergency clinicians. Am J Emerg Med. 2023;69:180–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Abu-Zidan FM, Jawas A, Idris K, et al. Surgical and critical care management of earthquake musculoskeletal injuries and crush syndrome: A collective review. Turk J Emerg Med. 2024;24(2):67–79. doi: 10.4103/tjem.tjem_11_24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hatamizadeh P, Najafi I, Vanholder R, et al. Epidemiologic aspects of the Bam earthquake in Iran: the nephrologic perspective. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;47:428. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Oda J. Analysis of 372 Patients with Crush Syndrome. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2002;17(S1):S24–S25. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. Treatment modalities and outcome of the renal victims of the Marmara earthquake. Nephron. 2002;92:64. doi: 10.1159/000064487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gunal AI, Celiker H, Dogukan A, et al. Early and vigorous fluid resuscitation prevents acute renal failure in the crush victims of catastrophic earthquakes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:1862–67. doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000129336.09976.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Better OS, Stein JH. Early management of shock and prophylaxis of acute renal failure in traumatic rhabdomyolysis. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:825–29. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199003223221207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pinsky MR, Brophy P, Padilla J, et al. Fluid and volume monitoring. Int J Artif Organs. 2008;31:111–26. doi: 10.1177/039139880803100205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Malinoski DJ, Slater MS, Mullins RJ. Crush injury and rhabdomyolysis. Crit Care Clin. 2004;20:171–92. doi: 10.1016/s0749-0704(03)00091-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. Renal replacement therapies in the aftermath of the catastrophic Marmara earthquake. Kidney Int. 2002;62:2264–71. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00669.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. Serum potassium in the crush syndrome victims of the Marmara disaster. Clin Nephrol. 2003;59:326–33. doi: 10.5414/cnp59326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]