Department of Trauma, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Harald Tscherne Laboratory, Department of Trauma, University Zurich, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 24;15(1):e0228082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228082. eCollection 2020.
INTRODUCTION: Early accurate assessment of the clinical status of severely injured patients is crucial for guiding the surgical treatment strategy. Several scales are available to differentiate between risk categories. They vary between expert recommendations and scores developed on the basis of patient data (level II). We compared four established scoring systems in regard to their predictive abilities for early (e.g., hemorrhage-induced mortality) versus late (Multiple Organ Failure (MOF), sepsis, late death) in-hospital complications. METHODS: A database from a level I trauma center was used. The inclusion criteria implied an injury severity score (ISS) of ≥16 points, primary admission, and a complete data set from admission to hospital-day 21. The following four scales were tested: the clinical grading scale (CGS; covers acidosis, shock, coagulation, and soft tissue injuries), the modified clinical grading scale (mCGS; covers CGS with modifications), the polytrauma grading score (PTGS; covers shock, coagulation, and ISS), and the early appropriate care protocol (EAC; covers acid-base changes). Admission values were selected from each scale and the following endpoints were compared: mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, death from hemorrhagic shock, and multiple organ failure. STATISTICS: Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution, Pearson Chi square, odds ratios (OR) for all endpoints, 95% confidence intervals. Fitted, generalized linear models were used for prediction analysis. Krippendorff was used for comparison of CGS and mCGS. Alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 3668 severely injured patients were included (mean age, 45.8±20 years; mean ISS, 28.2±15.1 points; incidence of pneumonia, 19.0%; incidence of sepsis, 14.9%; death from hem. shock, 4.1%; death from multiple organ failure (MOF), 1.9%; mortality rate, 26.8%). Our data show distinct differences in the prediction of complications, including mortality, for these scores (OR ranging from 0.5 to 9.1). The PTGS demonstrated the highest predictive value for any late complication (OR = 2.0), sepsis (OR = 2.6, p = 0.05), or pneumonia (OR = 2.0, p = 0.2). The EAC demonstrated good prediction for hemorrhage-induced early mortality (OR = 7.1, p<0.0001), but did not predict late complications (sepsis, OR = 0.8 and p = 0.52; pneumonia, OR = 1.1 and p = 0.7) CGS and mCGS are not comparable and should not be used interchangeably (Krippendorff α = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Our data show that prediction of complications is more precise after using values that covers different physiological systems (coagulation, hemorrhage, acid-base changes, and soft tissue damage) when compared with using values of only one physiological system (e.g., acidosis). When acid-base changes alone were tested in terms of complications, they were predictive of complications within 72 hours but failed to predict late complications. These findings should be considered when performing early assessment of trauma patients or for the development of new scores.
简介:早期准确评估严重创伤患者的临床状况对于指导手术治疗策略至关重要。有几种评分系统可用于区分风险类别。它们在专家建议和基于患者数据开发的评分之间存在差异(二级证据)。我们比较了四种已建立的评分系统,以评估它们在早期(例如,出血引起的死亡率)和晚期(多器官衰竭(MOF)、脓毒症、晚期死亡)住院并发症方面的预测能力。
方法:使用来自一级创伤中心的数据库。纳入标准为损伤严重程度评分(ISS)≥16 分、初次入院和从入院到住院第 21 天完整的数据。测试了以下四个量表:临床分级量表(CGS;涵盖酸中毒、休克、凝血和软组织损伤)、改良临床分级量表(mCGS;涵盖 CGS 的改良版本)、多发伤分级量表(PTGS;涵盖休克、凝血和 ISS)和早期适当治疗方案(EAC;涵盖酸碱变化)。从每个量表中选择入院值,并比较以下终点:死亡率、肺炎、脓毒症、出血性休克死亡和多器官衰竭。
统计学:Shapiro-Wilk 检验用于正态分布,Pearson Chi 平方检验用于所有终点,比值比(OR)用于所有终点,95%置信区间。使用拟合的广义线性模型进行预测分析。Krippendorff 用于比较 CGS 和 mCGS。α设为 0.05。
结果:共纳入 3668 例严重创伤患者(平均年龄 45.8±20 岁;平均 ISS 28.2±15.1 分;肺炎发生率 19.0%;脓毒症发生率 14.9%;出血性休克死亡率 4.1%;多器官衰竭死亡率 1.9%;死亡率 26.8%)。我们的数据显示,这些评分在预测并发症(包括死亡率)方面存在明显差异(OR 范围为 0.5 至 9.1)。PTGS 对任何晚期并发症(OR=2.0)、脓毒症(OR=2.6,p=0.05)或肺炎(OR=2.0,p=0.2)的预测价值最高。EAC 对出血引起的早期死亡率具有良好的预测性(OR=7.1,p<0.0001),但对晚期并发症无预测作用(脓毒症,OR=0.8,p=0.52;肺炎,OR=1.1,p=0.7)。CGS 和 mCGS 不可比,不应互换使用(Krippendorff α=0.045)。
结论:与仅使用一个生理系统(例如酸中毒)的评分相比,使用涵盖不同生理系统(凝血、出血、酸碱变化和软组织损伤)的评分时,预测并发症的准确性更高。当仅检测酸碱变化对并发症的影响时,它们可以预测 72 小时内的并发症,但无法预测晚期并发症。在对创伤患者进行早期评估或开发新评分时,应考虑这些发现。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016-6
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016-11
J Orthop Surg Res. 2015-9-24
J Trauma. 1999-4
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2004
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018-2-2
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024-12-27
Am J Emerg Med. 2018-3-7
World J Emerg Surg. 2018-3-6
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018-6
Anaesthesia. 2017-5-23
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017-2
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016-5