Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019 Jul-Aug;23(4):543-550. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2018.1549627. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
Several prehospital major trauma patient triage scores have been developed, the triage revised trauma score (T-RTS), Vittel criteria, Mechanism/Glasgow Coma Scale/Age/Systolic blood pressure score (MGAP), and the new trauma score (NTS). These scoring schemes allow a rapid and accurate prognostic assessment of the severity of potential lesions. The aim of our study was to compare these scores with in-hospital mortality predictions in a cohort of consecutive trauma patients admitted in a Level 1 trauma center. Between 2013 and 2016, 1,112 patients were admitted to the "major trauma" spinneret of a Level 1 trauma center in the south of France. All prehospital data needed to calculate the T-RTS, Vittel criteria, the MGAP score, and the NTS were collected. The main evaluation criterion was in-hospital mortality at 30 days for all causes. The predictive performances of these scores were evaluated and compared with each other using the analysis of the receiver operating curves. A total of 1,001 patients were included in the analysis, 238 (24%) females, aged 43 ± 19 years with ISS 15 ± 13. The area under the curve was for each score: T-RTS, AUC = 0.84, [0.82-0.87]; Vittel criteria, AUC = 0.87 [0.85-0.89]; MGAP score, AUC = 0.91 [0.89-0.92] and NTS, AUC = 0.90 [0.88-0.92]. By comparing the ROC curves of these scores, the MGAP and NTS scores were statistically higher than the T-RTS. With the current thresholds, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these scores were 91%, 35%, 10%, 98% for T-RTS, 100%, 2%, 8%, 100% for Vittel criteria, 91%, 71%, 24%, 99% for MGAP score, 82%, 86%, 33%, 98% for NTS. Only Vittel's criteria allowed undertriage below 5% as recommended by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT). The comparison of these different triage scores concluded with a superiority of the MGAP and NTS scores compared with the T-RTS. Including the calculation of MGAP or NTS scores with the Vittel criteria would reduce the risk of overtriage in the Level 1 trauma centers by further directing patients at low risk of death to a lower-level trauma facility.
一些院前严重创伤患者分诊评分已经开发出来,包括修订创伤评分(T-RTS)、维特尔标准、机制/格拉斯哥昏迷量表/年龄/收缩压评分(MGAP)和新创伤评分(NTS)。这些评分方案允许对潜在损伤的严重程度进行快速准确的预后评估。我们的研究目的是比较这些评分与连续收治于法国南部一级创伤中心的创伤患者院内死亡率预测值。 2013 年至 2016 年,共有 1112 名患者被收治于法国南部一级创伤中心的“严重创伤”转筒。收集了所有需要计算 T-RTS、Vittel 标准、MGAP 评分和 NTS 的院前数据。主要评估标准是所有原因的 30 天院内死亡率。使用接收者操作特征曲线分析评估了这些评分的预测性能,并对其进行了相互比较。 共纳入 1001 例患者进行分析,其中 238 例(24%)为女性,年龄 43±19 岁,ISS 为 15±13。每个评分的曲线下面积为:T-RTS,AUC=0.84,[0.82-0.87];Vittel 标准,AUC=0.87 [0.85-0.89];MGAP 评分,AUC=0.91 [0.89-0.92]和 NTS,AUC=0.90 [0.88-0.92]。通过比较这些评分的 ROC 曲线,MGAP 和 NTS 评分在统计学上高于 T-RTS。使用当前阈值,T-RTS 的灵敏度、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为 91%、35%、10%、98%;Vittel 标准的灵敏度、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为 100%、2%、8%、100%;MGAP 评分的灵敏度、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为 91%、71%、24%、99%;NTS 的灵敏度、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为 82%、86%、33%、98%。只有 Vittel 标准允许低于 5%的分诊过度(如美国外科医师学院创伤委员会(ACSCOT)所建议)。 这些不同分诊评分的比较结果表明,MGAP 和 NTS 评分优于 T-RTS。在 Vittel 标准中加入 MGAP 或 NTS 评分的计算,可以通过将低死亡风险患者分诊至低级别创伤机构,降低一级创伤中心分诊过度的风险。