Janak Jud C, Clemens Michael S, Howard Jeffrey T, Le Tuan D, Cancio Leopoldo C, Chung Kevin K, Gurney Jennifer M, Sosnov Jonathan A, Stewart Ian J
Joint Trauma System, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, United States.
San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, United States.
Burns. 2018 Dec;44(8):1920-1929. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.03.012. Epub 2018 Sep 17.
The injury severity score considers burn size and inhalation injury in estimating overall anatomical injury severity. Models that adjust for injury severity score in addition to total burn size and inhalation injury may therefore be double counting the risk from these individual burn characteristics, and obscuring (or overemphasizing) the contribution of risk from each source. The primary aim of this study was to compare differences in the estimated mortality risk of burn trauma using the traditional injury severity score (ISS) calculation and the non-burn injury severity score (NBISS) to examine how separating out the risk attributable to the burn injury versus other trauma changes the interpretation and clinical assessment.
Among U.S. casualties sustaining burns during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from March 2003 to October 2013, we performed a retrospective cohort study. Unadjusted, adjusted, and weighted Cox proportional hazards models were performed to estimate the risk of age, burn injury severity, and non-burn injury severity on mortality. Weighted hazard ratios and adjusted survival curves were performed using non-parametric inverse probability weighting.
Our final sample consisted of 902 service members with a mortality proportion of 5.7% (n=51). Adjusting for non-burn trauma with traditional ISS attenuated the risk of percent total body surface area burned (%TBSA) by 20% when modeled continuously [HR (95% CI): 1.27 (1.10-1.32) vs. 1.07 (0.99-1.15]. However, the adjusted model using NBISS only attenuated the associated mortality risk of burn size by 5% [HR (95% CI): 1.22 (1.12-1.34)] and had a similar model fit (AIC: 484.2 vs. 478.6). For the weighted Cox proportional hazards models, the risk from a large burn (%TBSA≥60) was also attenuated when adjusting for ISS [HR (95% CI): 2.80 (1.18-6.64)] compared to the model adjusting for NBISS [HR (95% CI): 5.63 (2.79-11.35)].
Our analysis comparing the use of traditional ISS and NBISS to measure comorbid non-burn trauma resulted in different interpretations for the effect of %TBSA on subsequent mortality. Our results suggest that the association of %TBSA with death can be obscured by the inclusion of traditional ISS. Therefore, we recommend using NBISS when constructing statistical models in this patient population.
损伤严重度评分在评估整体解剖学损伤严重程度时会考虑烧伤面积和吸入性损伤。因此,除了总烧伤面积和吸入性损伤外,还对损伤严重度评分进行调整的模型可能会重复计算这些个体烧伤特征带来的风险,从而掩盖(或过度强调)每个来源的风险贡献。本研究的主要目的是比较使用传统损伤严重度评分(ISS)计算方法和非烧伤损伤严重度评分(NBISS)来估计烧伤创伤患者的死亡风险差异,以检验将烧伤损伤与其他创伤所致风险区分开来如何改变解释和临床评估。
在2003年3月至2013年10月在伊拉克和阿富汗作战行动中遭受烧伤的美国伤亡人员中,我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究。采用未调整、调整和加权的Cox比例风险模型来估计年龄、烧伤损伤严重程度和非烧伤损伤严重程度对死亡率的风险。使用非参数逆概率加权法进行加权风险比和调整后的生存曲线分析。
我们的最终样本包括902名军人,死亡率为5.7%(n = 51)。当以连续方式建模时,用传统ISS对非烧伤创伤进行调整后,烧伤总面积百分比(%TBSA)的风险降低了20%[风险比(95%置信区间):1.27(1.10 - 1.32)对1.07(0.99 - 1.15)]。然而,仅使用NBISS的调整模型仅使烧伤面积相关的死亡风险降低了5%[风险比(95%置信区间):1.22(1.12 - 1.34)],且模型拟合度相似(AIC:484.2对478.6)。对于加权Cox比例风险模型,与调整NBISS的模型相比,调整ISS时,大面积烧伤(%TBSA≥60)的风险也有所降低[风险比(95%置信区间):2.80(1.18 - 6.64)]对[风险比(95%置信区间):5.63(2.79 - 11.35)]。
我们比较使用传统ISS和NBISS来测量合并的非烧伤创伤的分析结果,对于%TBSA对后续死亡率的影响产生了不同的解释。我们的结果表明,纳入传统ISS可能会掩盖%TBSA与死亡之间的关联。因此,我们建议在为该患者群体构建统计模型时使用NBISS。