Roy Nobhojit, Gerdin Martin, Schneider Eric, Kizhakke Veetil Deepa K, Khajanchi Monty, Kumar Vineet, Saha Makhal Lal, Dharap Satish, Gupta Amit, Tomson Göran, von Schreeb Johan
Department of Public Health Sciences, Health Systems and Policy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; BARC Hospital (Govt of India), HBNI University, Mumbai, India.
Department of Public Health Sciences, Health Systems and Policy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Injury. 2016 Nov;47(11):2459-2464. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.09.027. Epub 2016 Sep 20.
In the Lower-Middle Income Country setting, we validate trauma severity scoring systems, namely Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Scale (NISS) score, the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS) score and the TRauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) using Indian trauma patients.
From 1 September 2013 to 28 February 2015, we conducted a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of trauma patients in four Indian university hospitals, in three megacities, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi. All adult patients presenting to the casualty department with a history of injury and who were admitted to inpatient care were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 30-days of admission. The sensitivity and specificity of each score to predict inpatient mortality within 30days was assessed by the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model fit for the performance of individual scoring systems was accomplished by using the Akaike Information criterion (AIC).
In a registry of 8791 adult trauma patients, we had a cohort of 7197 patients eligible for the study. 4091 (56.8%)patients had all five scores available and was the sample for a complete case analysis. Over a 30-day period, the scores (AUC) was TRISS (0.82), RTS (0.81), KTS (0.74), NISS (0.65) and ISS (0.62). RTS was the most parsimonious model with the lowest AIC score. Considering overall mortality, both physiologic scores (RTS, KTS) had better discrimination and goodness-of-fit than ISS or NISS. The ability of all Injury scores to predict early mortality (24h) was better than late mortality (30day).
On-admission physiological scores outperformed the more expensive anatomy-based ISS and NISS. The retrospective nature of ISS and TRISS score calculations and incomplete imaging in LMICs precludes its use in the casualty department of LMICs. They will remain useful for outcome comparison across trauma centres. Physiological scores like the RTS and KTS will be the practical score to use in casualty departments in the urban Indian setting, to predict early trauma mortality and improve triage.
在中低收入国家背景下,我们使用印度创伤患者验证创伤严重程度评分系统,即损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、新损伤严重程度量表(NISS)评分、坎帕拉创伤评分(KTS)、修订创伤评分(RTS)评分和创伤损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)。
2013年9月1日至2015年2月28日,我们在印度三个大城市加尔各答、孟买和德里的四家大学医院对创伤患者进行了一项前瞻性多中心观察性队列研究。纳入所有因受伤前来急诊科就诊并入住住院治疗的成年患者。主要结局是入院30天内的院内死亡率。通过受试者操作特征曲线(AUC)下的面积评估每个评分预测30天内住院死亡率的敏感性和特异性。使用赤池信息准则(AIC)完成对各个评分系统性能的模型拟合。
在8791例成年创伤患者的登记中,我们有7197例符合研究条件的患者队列。4091例(56.8%)患者可获得所有五个评分,是进行完整病例分析的样本。在30天期间,各评分(AUC)分别为TRISS(0.82)、RTS(0.81)、KTS(0.74)、NISS(0.65)和ISS(0.62)。RTS是具有最低AIC评分的最简约模型。考虑总体死亡率,两种生理评分(RTS、KTS)比ISS或NISS具有更好的辨别力和拟合优度。所有损伤评分预测早期死亡率(24小时)的能力优于晚期死亡率(30天)。
入院时的生理评分优于更昂贵的基于解剖学的ISS和NISS。ISS和TRISS评分计算的回顾性性质以及中低收入国家成像不完整,使其无法在中低收入国家的急诊科使用。它们对于跨创伤中心的结局比较仍将有用。像RTS和KTS这样的生理评分将是印度城市环境中急诊科用于预测早期创伤死亡率和改善分诊的实用评分。