Wong Ting Hway, Krishnaswamy Gita, Nadkarni Nivedita Vikas, Nguyen Hai V, Lim Gek Hsiang, Bautista Dianne Carrol Tan, Chiu Ming Terk, Chow Khuan Yew, Ong Marcus Eng Hock
Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Republic of Singapore.
Duke-National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Mar 8;24:25. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0215-6.
BACKGROUND: Anatomy-based injury severity scores are commonly used with physiological scores for reporting severity of injury in a standardized manner. However, there is lack of consensus on choice of scoring system, with the commonly used injury severity score (ISS) performing poorly for certain sub-groups, eg head-injured patients. We hypothesized that adding a dichotomous variable for polytrauma (yes/no for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of 3 or more in at least two body regions) to the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) would improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in injured patients, including head-injured patients-a subgroup that has a disproportionately high mortality. Our secondary hypothesis was that the ISS over-estimates the risk of death in polytrauma patients, while the NISS under-estimates it. METHODS: Univariate and multivariable analysis was performed on retrospective cohort data of blunt injured patients aged 18 and over with an ISS over 9 from the Singapore National Trauma Registry from 2011-2013. Model diagnostics were tested using discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). All models included age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Our results showed that the polytrauma and NISS model outperformed the other models (polytrauma and ISS, NISS alone or ISS alone) in predicting 30-day and in-hospital mortality. The NISS underestimated the risk of death for patients with polytrauma, while the ISS overestimated the risk of death for these patients. When used together with the NISS and polytrauma, categorical variables for deranged physiology (systolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or less, GCS of 8 or less) outperformed the traditional 'ISS and RTS (Revised Trauma Score)' model, with a c-statistic of greater than 0.90. This could be useful in cases when the RTS cannot be scored due to missing respiratory rate. DISCUSSION: The NISS and polytrauma model is superior to current scores for prediction of 30-day and in-hospital mortality. We propose that this score replace the ISS or NISS in institutions using AIS-based scores. CONCLUSIONS: Adding polytrauma to the NISS or ISS improves prediction of 30-day mortality. The superiority of the NISS or ISS depends on the proportion of polytrauma and head-injured patients in the study population.
背景:基于解剖学的损伤严重程度评分通常与生理学评分一起用于以标准化方式报告损伤的严重程度。然而,在评分系统的选择上缺乏共识,常用的损伤严重程度评分(ISS)在某些亚组中表现不佳,例如头部受伤的患者。我们假设,在新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)中增加一个多部位创伤的二分变量(至少两个身体区域的简明损伤定级标准(AIS)评分为3或更高时为是/否)将改善对受伤患者,包括头部受伤患者(一个死亡率极高的亚组)住院死亡率的预测。我们的次要假设是,ISS高估了多部位创伤患者的死亡风险,而NISS则低估了这一风险。 方法:对2011年至2013年新加坡国家创伤登记处中年龄在18岁及以上、ISS超过9的钝性损伤患者的回顾性队列数据进行单变量和多变量分析。使用区分度(c统计量)和校准(Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度统计量)对模型诊断进行测试。所有模型均包括年龄、性别和合并症。 结果:我们的结果表明,多部位创伤和NISS模型在预测30天和住院死亡率方面优于其他模型(多部位创伤和ISS、单独的NISS或单独的ISS)。NISS低估了多部位创伤患者的死亡风险,而ISS高估了这些患者的死亡风险。当与NISS和多部位创伤一起使用时,生理紊乱的分类变量(收缩压90 mmHg或更低、格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分为8或更低)优于传统的“ISS和RTS(修订创伤评分)”模型,c统计量大于0.90。这在因呼吸频率缺失而无法计算RTS的情况下可能有用。 讨论:NISS和多部位创伤模型在预测30天和住院死亡率方面优于当前评分。我们建议在使用基于AIS评分的机构中,用这个评分取代ISS或NISS。 结论:在NISS或ISS中加入多部位创伤可改善对30天死亡率的预测。NISS或ISS的优越性取决于研究人群中多部位创伤和头部受伤患者的比例。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015-8
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2009-11
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2025-8-11
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2023-7-31
Colomb Med (Cali). 2021
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014-11
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014-10
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013-3
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012-9-10