Milton Maxine, Engelbrecht Andreas, Geyser Mimi
Division of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Arcadia, South Africa.
Afr J Emerg Med. 2021 Dec;11(4):453-458. doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2021.09.001. Epub 2021 Oct 28.
Over 90% of trauma-related deaths worldwide, ensue in low- and middle-income countries. Multiple useful trauma scoring systems have been devised. Although validated in high-income countries, they cannot always be replicated in resource-limited countries. This study compares six trauma scores to identify the best-suited system to use for polytrauma patients in a hospital in Pretoria, South Africa.
This is an observational retrospective analysis of polytrauma admissions from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016. Data collected from patients' records from the EC of Steve Biko Academic Hospital, was analysed using Stata Release 14. Outcomes were recorded as 30-day survival, ICU- and overall hospital LOS. Scores pertaining to patient mortality, were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off points based on ROC curve. Finally, for LOS Pearson correlation analysis was used.
At the best calculated mortality prediction cut-points for the scores, the sensitivities and specificities were respectively 87% and 68% for TRISS, 81% and 61% for ISS, RTS yielded 81% and 60%, while for REMS it was 61% and 69%. The SI and RSI (cut-points used in agreement with the literature) produced sensitivities 58% and only 48%, and specificities of 73% and 83%, respectively.45(41,7%) patients required ICU admission. Though the ICU LOS best correlated with ISS( = 0.2710), the ICU LOS correlation coefficient was weak for all trauma scores. None of the scores had a significant value for hospital LOS.
Among the scores compared, TRISS had the highest sensitivity and NPV for mortality prediction in this South African polytrauma population. ISS correlated best with ICU LOS. However, compared to developed countries, ROC analyses & predictability of these scores fare relatively worse, and no correlation was found with hospital LOS. Therefore, we conclude that further studies are needed to ascertain a more suitable system for resource-limited settings.
全球超过90%与创伤相关的死亡发生在低收入和中等收入国家。已经设计了多种有用的创伤评分系统。尽管这些系统在高收入国家得到了验证,但在资源有限的国家并不总是能够复制。本研究比较了六种创伤评分,以确定最适合南非比勒陀利亚一家医院多发伤患者的评分系统。
这是一项对2016年7月1日至2016年12月31日多发伤入院患者的观察性回顾分析。从史蒂夫·比科学术医院急诊室患者记录中收集的数据,使用Stata 14版本进行分析。结果记录为30天生存率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和总住院时间。根据ROC曲线,比较了与患者死亡率相关的评分在敏感性、特异性和切点方面的情况。最后,对住院时间进行了Pearson相关分析。
在各评分的最佳计算死亡率预测切点处,创伤和损伤严重度评分(TRISS)的敏感性和特异性分别为87%和68%,简明损伤定级(ISS)为81%和61%,修订创伤评分(RTS)为81%和60%,而快速急诊医学评分(REMS)为61%和69%。简易损伤评分(SI)和修订简易损伤评分(RSI,采用与文献一致的切点)的敏感性分别为58%和仅48%,特异性分别为73%和83%。45名(41.7%)患者需要入住ICU。虽然ICU住院时间与ISS的相关性最好(r = 0.2710),但所有创伤评分与ICU住院时间的相关系数都较弱。没有一个评分与总住院时间有显著的r值。
在比较的评分中,TRISS在这个南非多发伤人群中对死亡率预测的敏感性和阴性预测值最高。ISS与ICU住院时间的相关性最好。然而,与发达国家相比,这些评分的ROC分析和预测能力相对较差,且未发现与总住院时间有相关性。因此,我们得出结论,需要进一步研究以确定更适合资源有限环境的系统。