Suppr超能文献

验证老年创伤结局评分在预测老年创伤患者结局中的作用。

Validation of the geriatric trauma outcome scores in predicting outcomes of elderly trauma patients.

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth hospital, Perth, Australia.

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth hospital; Medical School, University of Western Australia; and School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

出版信息

Injury. 2021 Feb;52(2):154-159. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.056. Epub 2020 Oct 5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Using three patient characteristics, including age, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and transfusion within 24 h of admission (yes vs. no), the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score II (GTOS II) have been developed to predict mortality and unfavourable discharge (to a nursing home or hospice facility), of those who were ≥65 years old, respectively.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to validate the GTOS and GTOS II models. For the nested-cohort requiring intensive care, we compared the GTOS scores with two ICU prognostic scores - the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III and Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death (ANZROD).

METHODS

All elderly trauma patients admitted to the State Trauma Unit between 2009 and 2019 were included. The discrimination ability and calibration of the GTOS and GTOS II scores were assessed by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (AUROC) curve and a calibration plot, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 57,473 trauma admissions during the study period, 15,034 (26.2%) were ≥65 years-old. The median age and ISS of the cohort were 80 (interquartile range [IQR] 72-87) and 6 (IQR 2-9), respectively; and the average observed mortality was 4.3%. The ability of the GTOS to predict mortality was good (AUROC 0.838, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.821-0.855), and better than either age (AUROC 0.603, 95%CI 0.581-0.624) or ISS (AUROC 0.799, 95%CI 0.779-0.819) alone. The GTOS II's ability to predict unfavourable discharge was satisfactory (AUROC 0.707, 95%CI 0.696-0.719) but no better than age alone. Both GTOS and GTOS II scores over-estimated risks of the adverse outcome when the predicted risks were high. The GTOS score (AUROC 0.683, 95%CI 0.591-0.775) was also inferior to the APACHE III (AUROC 0.783, 95%CI 0.699-0.867) or ANZROD (AUROC 0.788, 95%CI 0.705-0.870) in predicting mortality for those requiring intensive care.

CONCLUSIONS

The GTOS scores had a good ability to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors in the elderly trauma patients, but GTOS II scores were no better than age alone in predicting unfavourable discharge. Both GTOS and GTOS II scores were not well-calibrated when the predicted risks of adverse outcome were high.

摘要

背景

使用三个患者特征,包括年龄、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和入院 24 小时内输血(是与否),老年创伤结局评分(GTOS)和老年创伤结局评分 II(GTOS II)分别被开发出来以预测年龄≥65 岁患者的死亡率和不良出院(至疗养院或临终关怀机构)。

目的

本研究旨在验证 GTOS 和 GTOS II 模型。对于需要重症监护的嵌套队列,我们将 GTOS 评分与两个 ICU 预后评分——急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE)III 和澳大利亚和新西兰死亡风险(ANZROD)进行比较。

方法

纳入 2009 年至 2019 年期间在州创伤科住院的所有老年创伤患者。通过受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUROC)和校准图评估 GTOS 和 GTOS II 评分的区分能力和校准情况。

结果

在研究期间,57473 例创伤住院患者中,有 15034 例(26.2%)年龄≥65 岁。队列的中位年龄和 ISS 分别为 80(四分位间距[IQR] 72-87)和 6(IQR 2-9),平均观察死亡率为 4.3%。GTOS 预测死亡率的能力良好(AUROC 0.838,95%置信区间[CI] 0.821-0.855),优于年龄(AUROC 0.603,95%CI 0.581-0.624)或 ISS(AUROC 0.799,95%CI 0.779-0.819)。GTOS II 预测不良出院的能力令人满意(AUROC 0.707,95%CI 0.696-0.719),但并不优于单独使用年龄。当预测风险较高时,GTOS 和 GTOS II 评分均高估了不良预后的风险。GTOS 评分(AUROC 0.683,95%CI 0.591-0.775)也逊于 APACHE III(AUROC 0.783,95%CI 0.699-0.867)或 ANZROD(AUROC 0.788,95%CI 0.705-0.870),用于预测需要重症监护的患者的死亡率。

结论

GTOS 评分在老年创伤患者中具有良好的区分幸存者和非幸存者的能力,但 GTOS II 评分在预测不良出院方面并不优于年龄。当预测不良预后的风险较高时,GTOS 和 GTOS II 评分均校准不佳。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验