Park Hyun Oh, Kim Jong Woo, Kim Sung Hwan, Moon Seong Ho, Byun Joung Hun, Kim Ki Nyun, Yang Jun Ho, Lee Chung Eun, Jang In Seok, Kang Dong Hun, Kim Seong Chun, Kang Changwoo, Choi Jun Young
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Changwon Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju Department of Emergency Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Changwon Department of Emergency Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(44):e8449. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008449.
Early estimation of mortality risk in patients with trauma is essential. In this study, we evaluate the validity of the Emergency Trauma Score (EMTRAS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma. Furthermore, we compared the REMS and the EMTRAS with 2 other scoring systems: the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and Injury Severity score (ISS).We performed a retrospective chart review of 6905 patients with trauma reported between July 2011 and June 2016 at a large national university hospital in South Korea. We analyzed the associations between patient characteristics, treatment course, and injury severity scoring systems (ISS, RTS, EMTRAS, and REMS) with in-hospital mortality. Discriminating power was compared between scoring systems using the areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. Higher EMTRAS and REMS scores were associated with hospital mortality (P < .001). The ROC curve demonstrated adequate discrimination (AUC = 0.957 for EMTRAS and 0.9 for REMS). After performing AUC analysis followed by Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, EMTRAS was significantly superior to REMS and ISS in predicting in-hospital mortality (P < .001), but not significantly different from the RTS (P = .057). The other scoring systems were not significantly different from each other.The EMTRAS and the REMS are simple, accurate predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma.
早期评估创伤患者的死亡风险至关重要。在本研究中,我们评估了急诊创伤评分(EMTRAS)和快速急诊医学评分(REMS)对预测创伤患者院内死亡率的有效性。此外,我们将REMS和EMTRAS与其他两个评分系统进行了比较:修订创伤评分(RTS)和损伤严重度评分(ISS)。我们对韩国一家大型国立大学医院在2011年7月至2016年6月期间报告的6905例创伤患者进行了回顾性病历审查。我们分析了患者特征、治疗过程和损伤严重度评分系统(ISS、RTS、EMTRAS和REMS)与院内死亡率之间的关联。使用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线的曲线下面积(AUC)比较了评分系统之间的鉴别能力。总体院内死亡率为3.1%。较高的EMTRAS和REMS评分与医院死亡率相关(P<0.001)。ROC曲线显示出足够的鉴别能力(EMTRAS的AUC = 0.957,REMS的AUC = 0.9)。在进行AUC分析并随后进行Bonferroni多重比较校正后,EMTRAS在预测院内死亡率方面显著优于REMS和ISS(P<0.001),但与RTS无显著差异(P = 0.057)。其他评分系统之间无显著差异。EMTRAS和REMS是创伤患者院内死亡率的简单、准确预测指标。