Nunez Timothy C, Voskresensky Igor V, Dossett Lesly A, Shinall Ricky, Dutton William D, Cotton Bryan A
Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
J Trauma. 2009 Feb;66(2):346-52. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181961c35.
Massive transfusion (MT) occurs in about 3% of civilian and 8% of military trauma patients. Although many centers have implemented MT protocols, most do not have a standardized initiation policy. The purpose of this study was to validate previously described MT scoring systems and compare these to a simplified nonlaboratory dependent scoring system (Assessment of Blood Consumption [ABC] score).
Retrospective cohort of all level I adult trauma patients transported directly from the scene (July 2005 to June 2006). Trauma-Associated Severe Hemorrhage (TASH) and McLaughlin scores calculated according to published methods. ABC score was assigned based on four nonweighted parameters: penetrating mechanism, positive focused assessment sonography for trauma, arrival systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or less, and arrival heart rate > or = 120 bpm. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) used to compare scoring systems.
Five hundred ninety-six patients were available for analysis; and the overall MT rate of 12.4%. Patients receiving MT had higher TASH (median, 6 vs. 13; p < 0.001), McLaughlin (median, 2.4 vs. 3.4; p < 0.001) and ABC (median, 1 vs. 2; p < 0.001) scores. TASH (AUROC = 0.842), McLaughlin (AUROC = 0.846), and ABC (AUROC = 0.842) scores were all good predictors of MT, and the difference between the scores was not statistically significant. ABC score of 2 or greater was 75% sensitive and 86% specific for predicting MT (correctly classified 85%).
The ABC score, which uses nonlaboratory, nonweighted parameters, is a simple and accurate in identifying patients who will require MT as compared with those previously published scores.
大量输血(MT)发生在约3%的 civilian 和8%的军事创伤患者中。尽管许多中心已实施MT方案,但大多数没有标准化的启动政策。本研究的目的是验证先前描述的MT评分系统,并将其与简化的非实验室依赖评分系统(血液消耗评估[ABC]评分)进行比较。
回顾性队列研究所有直接从现场转运的I级成年创伤患者(2005年7月至2006年6月)。根据已发表的方法计算创伤相关严重出血(TASH)和麦克劳克林评分。ABC评分基于四个未加权参数进行分配:穿透机制、创伤阳性聚焦超声检查、到达时收缩压90 mmHg或更低以及到达时心率>或=120次/分钟。使用受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)比较评分系统。
596例患者可供分析;总体MT率为12.4%。接受MT的患者TASH(中位数,6对13;p<0.001)、麦克劳克林(中位数,2.4对3.4;p<0.001)和ABC(中位数,1对2;p<0.001)评分更高。TASH(AUROC = 0.842)、麦克劳克林(AUROC = 0.846)和ABC(AUROC = 0.842)评分都是MT的良好预测指标,且评分之间的差异无统计学意义。ABC评分为2或更高时,预测MT的敏感性为75%,特异性为86%(正确分类率为85%)。
与先前发表的评分相比,使用非实验室、未加权参数的ABC评分在识别需要MT的患者方面简单且准确。