Mackenzie Colin F, Gao Cheng, Hu Peter F, Anazodo Amechi, Chen Hegang, Dinardo Theresa, Imle P Cristina, Hartsky Lauren, Stephens Christopher, Menaker Jay, Fouche Yvette, Murdock Karen, Galvagno Samuel, Alcorta Richard, Shackelford Stacy
*Department of Anesthesiology, †Shock Trauma Anesthesiology Research Center and Charles McMathias National Study Center for Trauma and EMS, and ‡Department of Physiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine; §Departments of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; ∥Department of Epidemiology, ¶Shock Trauma Nursing, and **Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine; ††USAF C-STARS Baltimore, Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems; and ‡‡Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Shock. 2015 Mar;43(3):238-43. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000288.
Early recognition of hemorrhage during the initial resuscitation of injured patients is associated with improved survival in both civilian and military casualties. We tested a transfusion and lifesaving intervention (LSI) prediction algorithm in comparison with clinical judgment of expert trauma care providers. We collected 15 min of pulse oximeter photopletysmograph waveforms and extracted features to predict LSIs. We compared this with clinical judgment of LSIs by individual categories of prehospital providers, nurses, and physicians and a combined judgment of all three providers using the Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC). We obtained clinical judgment of need for LSI from 405 expert clinicians in135 trauma patients. The pulse oximeter algorithm predicted transfusion within 6 h (AUROC, 0.92; P < 0.003) more accurately than either physicians or prehospital providers and as accurately as nurses (AUROC, 0.76; P = 0.07). For prediction of surgical procedures, the algorithm was as accurate as the three categories of clinicians. For prediction of fluid bolus, the diagnostic algorithm (AUROC, 0.9) was significantly more accurate than prehospital providers (AUROC, 0.62; P = 0.02) and nurses (AUROC, 0.57; P = 0.04) and as accurate as physicians (AUROC, 0.71; P = 0.06). Prediction of intubation by the algorithm (AUROC, 0.92) was as accurate as each of the three categories of clinicians. The algorithm was more accurate (P < 0.03) for blood and fluid prediction than the combined clinical judgment of all three providers but no different from the clinicians in the prediction of surgery (P = 0.7) or intubation (P = 0.8). Automated analysis of 15 min of pulse oximeter waveforms predicts the need for LSIs during initial trauma resuscitation as accurately as judgment of expert trauma clinicians. For prediction of emergency transfusion and fluid bolus, pulse oximetry features were more accurate than these experts. Such automated decision support could assist resuscitation decisions, trauma team, and operating room and blood bank preparations.
在受伤患者的初始复苏过程中,早期识别出血情况与平民和军事伤员的生存率提高相关。我们测试了一种输血和救生干预(LSI)预测算法,并与创伤护理专家的临床判断进行比较。我们收集了15分钟的脉搏血氧仪光电容积脉搏波波形,并提取特征以预测LSI。我们将其与院前急救人员、护士和医生按个体类别对LSI的临床判断以及这三类人员的综合判断进行比较,使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)。我们从135名创伤患者的405名专家临床医生那里获得了对LSI需求的临床判断。脉搏血氧仪算法在预测6小时内输血情况(AUROC,0.92;P < 0.003)方面比医生或院前急救人员更准确,与护士的准确性相当(AUROC,0.76;P = 0.07)。对于手术操作的预测,该算法与三类临床医生的准确性相同。对于液体冲击的预测,诊断算法(AUROC,0.9)比院前急救人员(AUROC,0.62;P = 0.02)和护士(AUROC,0.57;P = 0.04)显著更准确,与医生的准确性相当(AUROC,0.71;P = 0.06)。该算法对插管的预测(AUROC,0.92)与三类临床医生中每一类的准确性相同。该算法在血液和液体预测方面比三类人员的综合临床判断更准确(P < 0.03),但在手术预测(P = 0.7)或插管预测(P = 0.8)方面与临床医生没有差异。对15分钟脉搏血氧仪波形的自动分析在初始创伤复苏期间预测LSI需求的准确性与创伤专家临床医生的判断相同。对于紧急输血和液体冲击的预测,脉搏血氧特征比这些专家更准确。这种自动决策支持可以协助复苏决策、创伤团队以及手术室和血库的准备工作。