From the Department of Surgery (M.C., Y.Z., C.B., M.H., E.T., S.T., C.G., J.D. R.S., P.M.), Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Surgery (T.B.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Department of Histology and Cell Biology (E.T.), Genetics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 Mar 1;92(3):528-534. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003449.
Trauma scores are used to give clinicians appropriate quantitative context in making decisions. Studies show that anatomical trauma scores predicted intensive care unit admission better, while physiological trauma scores predicted mortality better. We hypothesize that trauma scores have a hierarchy of efficacies at predicting mortality and operative decision making.
We performed a retrospective analysis of our trauma patient database at a level 1 trauma center from 2016 to 2020 and calculated the following trauma scores: Glasgow Coma Scale, Revised Trauma Score, Trauma Injury Severity Score, Injury Severity Score, Shock Index, and New Trauma Injury Severity Score (NISS). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of trauma scores for predicting mortality.
A total of 738 patients were included (mean ± SD age, 35.7 ± 15.6 years). Area under the curve (AUC) results from the DeLong test showed that NISS predicted mortality the best compared with other trauma scores. New Trauma Injury Severity Score was superior in predicting mortality for penetrating trauma (AUC, 0.86 ± 0.02; p < 0.001) compared with blunt trauma (AUC, 0.73 ± 0.04; p < 0.001). Trauma Injury Severity Score was the best predictor of mortality for patients with gunshot wounds (AUC, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.92; p < 0.001), motor vehicle accidents (AUC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00; p = 0.01), and falls (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; p = 0.007).
New Trauma Injury Severity Score was the best scoring index for predicting mortality in trauma patients, especially for penetrating trauma. Clinicians should consider incorporating other trauma scores, especially NISS and Trauma Injury Severity Score, in determining injury severity and the likelihood of mortality. These scores can help physicians determine the best course of action in patient management.
Prognostic and Epidemiologic; level IV.
创伤评分用于为临床医生提供适当的定量决策背景。研究表明,解剖创伤评分更能预测重症监护病房的收治,而生理创伤评分更能预测死亡率。我们假设创伤评分在预测死亡率和手术决策方面具有分层功效。
我们对 2016 年至 2020 年在一级创伤中心的创伤患者数据库进行了回顾性分析,并计算了以下创伤评分:格拉斯哥昏迷评分、修订创伤评分、创伤损伤严重程度评分、损伤严重程度评分、休克指数和新创伤损伤严重程度评分(NISS)。使用接收者操作特征曲线评估创伤评分预测死亡率的敏感性和特异性。
共纳入 738 例患者(平均年龄 ± 标准差为 35.7 ± 15.6 岁)。DeLong 检验的曲线下面积(AUC)结果显示,NISS 预测死亡率优于其他创伤评分。新创伤损伤严重程度评分在预测穿透性创伤(AUC:0.86 ± 0.02;p < 0.001)的死亡率方面优于钝性创伤(AUC:0.73 ± 0.04;p < 0.001)。创伤损伤严重程度评分是预测枪伤患者死亡率的最佳指标(AUC:0.83;95%置信区间[CI]:0.73-0.92;p < 0.001)、机动车事故(AUC:0.80;95%CI:0.61-1.00;p = 0.01)和跌倒(AUC:0.73;95%CI:0.61-0.85;p = 0.007)的死亡率的最佳预测指标。
新创伤损伤严重程度评分是预测创伤患者死亡率的最佳评分指标,尤其是穿透性创伤。临床医生应考虑将其他创伤评分(尤其是 NISS 和创伤损伤严重程度评分)纳入确定损伤严重程度和死亡率的可能性。这些评分可以帮助医生确定患者管理的最佳治疗方案。
预后和流行病学;IV 级。