Suppr超能文献

MGAP 评分对住院创伤患者的意义:与 TRISS、ISS 和 NISS 评分的比较。

Interest of the MGAP score on in-hospital trauma patients: Comparison with TRISS, ISS and NISS scores.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.

Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States.

出版信息

Injury. 2022 Sep;53(9):3059-3064. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.05.024. Epub 2022 May 19.

Abstract

Trauma scoring systems were created to predict mortality and enhance triage capabilities. However, efficacy of scoring systems to predict mortality and accuracy of originally reported severity thresholds remains uncertain. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted at University of Virginia (UVA), an American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center. We compared four scoring systems: MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and arterial pressure), Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS) to predict in-hospital mortality and disposition from the emergency department to higher acuity level of care including mortality (i.e. operating room, intensive care unit, morgue) versus standard floor admission using area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. Second, we examined sensitivity of these scores at standard thresholds to determine if adjustments were needed to minimize under-triage (sensitivity ≥95%). TRISS was the best predictor of mortality in a cohort of n = 16,265 with AUC of 0.920 (95% CI: 0.911-0.929, p<0.0001), followed by MGAP with AUC of 0.900 (95% CI: 0.889-0.911, p<0.0001), and finally ISS and NISS (0.830 (95% CI: 0.814-0.847) and 0.827 (95% CI: 0.809-0.844) respectively). NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition with an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI: 0.721-0.736, p<0.0001), followed by ISS with AUC of 0.714 (95% CI: 0.707-0.722, p<0.0001), and finally TRISS and MGAP (0.673 (95% CI: 0.665-0.682) and 0.613 (95% CI: 0.604-0.621) respectively (p<0.0001). At historic thresholds, no scoring system displayed adequate sensitivity to predict mortality, with values ranging from 73% for ISS to 80% for NISS. In conclusion, in the reported study cohort, TRISS was the best predictor of mortality while NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition. We also stress updating scoring system thresholds to achieve ideal sensitivity, and investigating how scoring systems derived to predict mortality perform when predicting indicators of morbidity such as disposition from the emergency department.

摘要

创伤评分系统旨在预测死亡率并增强分诊能力。然而,评分系统预测死亡率的效果和最初报告的严重程度阈值的准确性仍不确定。这是一项在美国弗吉尼亚大学(UVA)进行的单中心回顾性研究,该大学是美国外科医师学会认证的一级创伤中心。我们比较了四种评分系统:MGAP(机制、格拉斯哥昏迷评分、年龄和动脉压)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)和创伤相关损伤严重程度评分(TRISS),以预测院内死亡率和从急诊科到更高严重程度的治疗水平(包括死亡率,即手术室、重症监护病房、太平间)的处置情况,使用接收者操作特征分析的曲线下面积(AUC)。其次,我们检查了这些评分标准在标准阈值下的敏感性,以确定是否需要进行调整以最大程度地减少分诊不足(敏感性≥95%)。TRISS 是 n = 16265 例患者死亡率的最佳预测指标,AUC 为 0.920(95%CI:0.911-0.929,p<0.0001),其次是 MGAP,AUC 为 0.900(95%CI:0.889-0.911,p<0.0001),最后是 ISS 和 NISS(0.830(95%CI:0.814-0.847)和 0.827(95%CI:0.809-0.844))。NISS 是高 acuity 处置的最佳预测指标,AUC 为 0.729(95%CI:0.721-0.736,p<0.0001),其次是 ISS,AUC 为 0.714(95%CI:0.707-0.722,p<0.0001),最后是 TRISS 和 MGAP(0.673(95%CI:0.665-0.682)和 0.613(95%CI:0.604-0.621))(p<0.0001)。在历史阈值下,没有评分系统显示出足够的敏感性来预测死亡率,其值范围从 ISS 的 73%到 NISS 的 80%。总之,在报告的研究队列中,TRISS 是死亡率的最佳预测指标,而 NISS 是高 acuity 处置的最佳预测指标。我们还强调更新评分系统阈值以达到理想的敏感性,并研究用于预测死亡率的评分系统在预测急诊科处置等发病率指标时的表现。

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