Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Eur J Emerg Med. 2024 Jun 1;31(3):181-187. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001110. Epub 2023 Dec 13.
This study compared the on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the GCS-motor (GCS-M) for predictive accuracy of mortality and severe disability using a large, multicenter population of trauma patients in Asian countries.
To compare the ability of the prehospital GCS and GCS-M to predict 30-day mortality and severe disability in trauma patients.
We used the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study registry to enroll all trauma patients >18 years of age who presented to hospitals via emergency medical services from 1 January 2016 to November 30, 2018.
A total of 16,218 patients were included in the analysis of 30-day mortality and 11 653 patients in the analysis of functional outcomes.
The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after injury, and the secondary outcome was severe disability at discharge defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥4. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were compared between GCS and GCS-M for these outcomes. Patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) were analyzed separately. The predictive discrimination ability of logistic regression models for outcomes (30-day mortality and MRS) between GCS and GCS-M is illustrated using AUROCs.
The primary outcome for 30-day mortality was 1.04% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.917 (0.887-0.946) vs. GCS-M:0.907 (0.875-0.938), P = 0.155. The secondary outcome for poor functional outcome (MRS ≥ 4) was 12.4% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.617 (0.597-0.637) vs. GCS-M: 0.613 (0.593-0.633), P = 0.616. The subgroup analyses of patients with and without TBI demonstrated consistent discrimination ability between the GCS and GCS-M. The AUROC values of the GCS vs. GCS-M models for 30-day mortality and poor functional outcome were 0.92 (0.821-1.0) vs. 0.92 (0.824-1.0) ( P = 0.64) and 0.75 (0.72-0.78) vs. 0.74 (0.717-0.758) ( P = 0.21), respectively.
In the prehospital setting, on-scene GCS-M was comparable to GCS in predicting 30-day mortality and poor functional outcomes among patients with trauma, whether or not there was a TBI.
本研究比较了现场格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)和 GCS-运动(GCS-M)在亚洲国家多中心创伤患者人群中对死亡率和严重残疾的预测准确性。
比较院前 GCS 和 GCS-M 对创伤患者 30 天死亡率和严重残疾的预测能力。
我们使用泛亚洲创伤结局研究登记处,纳入 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 11 月 30 日通过急诊医疗服务到医院就诊的年龄>18 岁的所有创伤患者。
共纳入 16218 例患者进行 30 天死亡率分析,11653 例患者进行功能结局分析。
主要结局为损伤后 30 天死亡率,次要结局为出院时严重残疾定义为改良 Rankin 量表(MRS)评分≥4 分。比较 GCS 和 GCS-M 对这些结局的受试者工作特征曲线(AUROC)下面积。分别分析有和无创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的患者。使用 AUROC 图示说明逻辑回归模型对结局(30 天死亡率和 MRS)的预测区分能力。
30 天死亡率的主要结局为 1.04%,GCS 的预测 AUROC 和 95%置信区间为 0.917(0.887-0.946),GCS-M 为 0.907(0.875-0.938),P=0.155。不良功能结局(MRS≥4)的次要结局为 12.4%,GCS 的预测 AUROC 和 95%置信区间为 0.617(0.597-0.637),GCS-M 为 0.613(0.593-0.633),P=0.616。有和无 TBI 的患者亚组分析表明,GCS 和 GCS-M 之间的区分能力一致。GCS 与 GCS-M 模型预测 30 天死亡率和不良功能结局的 AUROC 值分别为 0.92(0.821-1.0)与 0.92(0.824-1.0)(P=0.64)和 0.75(0.72-0.78)与 0.74(0.717-0.758)(P=0.21)。
在院前环境中,现场 GCS-M 与 GCS 一样,可预测创伤患者 30 天死亡率和严重残疾,无论是否存在 TBI。