Yes, but probably not exactly the way that Holmes is using it in this example.

Modern trauma study emerged in the nineteenth century concurrent with the mechanization of transportation. The British physician John Erichsen, “who during the 1860s identified the trauma syndrome in victims suffering from the fright of railway accidents and attributed the distress to shock or concussion of the spine,” provided the first physiological definition of trauma (Leys 3). It became a legal issue, largely absent from public consciousness until World War I. Trauma was clearly connected to a physiological problem that affected the nerves, specifically the spine, and caused undetectable changes in the brain. It was primarily a legal issue in Britain because of the way they structured payments to rail accident victims. It was treated in a variety of ways, ranging from hypnosis and rest cures to early occupational therapy and "talking cures," which is rather similar to talk therapy today. There was no single approved cure, but a plethora of early psychologists who all addressed the issue differently. Since Holmes' subject suffered physiologically, he would likely have fit a diagnosis of "traumatic neurosis" per the standards at the time, though he would have been unlikely to receive treatment because it was A) uncommon and B) he was not seeking monetary compensation.

In the United States, soldier's heart was a common name for PTSD during and after the Civil War. It was marked by heart palpitations, anxiety, and troubled breathing, connected to an overstimulation of the heart. Holmes may have known of this, and he surely would have been familiar with Shakespeare's description of PTSD as told by Lady Percy in Henry IV, Part 1: "Tell me, sweet lord, what is't that takes from thee/Thy stomach, pleasure and thy golden sleep?" (Act II sc 3). Read the whole thing; it's a powerful speech. She details insomnia, indigestion, and night terrors in such a way that the soliloquy still reads true for many PTSD sufferers today.

It was only during and after World War I that the preponderance of victims forced the issue into the mainstream, though many physicians still considered shell-shock to be a form of malingering. Even then, it primarily linked to physical wounds and the compression from explosions, even though doctors were treating men who could not prove that they were in the vicinity of an explosion, and perhaps were not even on the front lines at the time.

Sources: Ruth Leys, Trauma: A Genealogy

Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question

National Center for PTSD (website primer for subject)