Khari Sorour, Zandi Mitra, Yousefifard Mahmoud
Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2022 Apr 9;10(1):e25. doi: 10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1483. eCollection 2022.
There is no consensus on the performance of decision rules in predicting the prognosis of trauma patients. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the value of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and physiologic scoring systems in predicting mortality and poor outcome of trauma patients.
This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted on multiple trauma patients admitted to the intensive care units of two hospitals in Tehran, Iran, from 21 November 2020 to 22 May 2021. The patients' demographic characteristics, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), the vital signs, and the GCS on admission were recorded. Finally, the mortality, disability, and complete recovery of patients at the time of discharge were evaluated and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the performance of physiologic scoring systems with GCS.
200 trauma patients with the mean age of 43.53±19.84 years were evaluated (74% male). The area under the ROC curve for New Trauma Score (NTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score (GAPS) ,Glasgow coma scale (GCS) in prediction of mortality were 0.95, 0.95, 0.83, 0.89, 0.91, 0.84, 0.77, 0.97, and 0.98 respectively. The performance of GCS was statistically superior to RTS (P=0.005), WPSS (P=0.0001), RAPS (P=0.0002), REMS (P=0.002), MEWS (P<0.0001), and NEWS (P<0.0001). However, the performance of GCS, NTS (P=0.146), and GAPS (P=0.513) were not significantly different. Also, in prediction of poor outcomes, the AUC of GCS (0.98) was significantly higher than RTS (0.95), RAPS (0.85), REMS (0.85), MEWS (0.84), NEWS (0.77), and WPSS (0.75).
The GCS score seems to be a better instrument to predict mortality and poor outcome in trauma patients compared to other tools due to its high accuracy, wide application, and easy calculation.
在预测创伤患者的预后方面,决策规则的表现尚无共识。因此,本研究旨在比较格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和生理评分系统在预测创伤患者死亡率和不良结局方面的价值。
本诊断准确性研究于2020年11月21日至2021年5月22日对伊朗德黑兰两家医院重症监护病房收治的多发伤患者进行。记录患者的人口统计学特征、在重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间、生命体征以及入院时的GCS评分。最后,评估患者出院时的死亡率、残疾情况和完全康复情况,并使用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线分析来比较生理评分系统与GCS的表现。
评估了200例平均年龄为43.53±19.84岁的创伤患者(74%为男性)。新创伤评分(NTS)、修订创伤评分(RTS)、沃辛生理评分系统(WPSS)、快速急性生理学评分(RAPS)、快速急诊医学评分(REMS)、改良早期预警评分(MEWS)、国家早期预警评分(NEWS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表、年龄和收缩压评分(GAPS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)预测死亡率的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.95、0.95、0.83、0.89、0.91、0.84、0.77、0.97和0.98。GCS的表现在统计学上优于RTS(P = 0.005)、WPSS(P = 0.0001)、RAPS(P = 0.0002)、REMS(P = 0.002)、MEWS(P < 0.0001)和NEWS(P < 0.0001)。然而,GCS、NTS(P = 0.146)和GAPS(P = 0.513)的表现无显著差异。此外,在预测不良结局方面,GCS的AUC(0.98)显著高于RTS(0.95)、RAPS(0.85)、REMS(0.85)、MEWS(0.84)、NEWS(0.77)和WPSS(0.75)。
由于其高准确性、广泛应用和易于计算,GCS评分似乎是预测创伤患者死亡率和不良结局的比其他工具更好的指标。