Suppr超能文献

基于生命体征的分诊工具在美国和联军部队中的临床准确性评估。

An Assessment of Clinical Accuracy of Vital Sign-based Triage Tools Among U.S. and Coalition Forces.

机构信息

Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.

14th Field Hospital, Fort Stewart, GA 31314, USA.

出版信息

Mil Med. 2024 Jul 3;189(7-8):e1528-e1536. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usad500.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Early appropriate allocation of resources for critically injured combat casualties is essential. This is especially important when inundated with an overwhelming number of casualties where limited resources must be efficiently allocated, such as during mass casualty events. There are multiple scoring systems utilized in the prehospital combat setting, including the shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), simple triage and rapid treatment (START), revised trauma score (RTS), new trauma score (NTS), Glasgow Coma Scale + age + pressure (GAP), and the mechanism + GAP (MGAP) score. The optimal score for application to the combat trauma population remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a previously described dataset from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 1, 2007 through March 17, 2020. We constructed univariable analyses to determine the area under the receiving operator characteristic (AUROC) for the scoring systems of interest. Our primary outcomes were early death (within 24 hours) or early massive transfusion, as defined by ≥3 units.

RESULTS

There were 12,268 casualties that met inclusion criteria. There were 168 (1%) who died within the first 24 hours and 2082 (17%) that underwent significant transfusion within the first 24 hours. When assessing the predictive capabilities for death within 24 hours, the AUROCs were 0.72 (SI), 0.69 (MSI), 0.89 (START), 0.90 (RTS), 0.83 (NTS), 0.90 (GAP), and 0.91 (MGAP). The AUROCs for massive transfusion were 0.89 (SI), 0.89 (MSI), 0.82 (START), 0.81 (RTS), 0.83 (NTS), 0.85 (MGAP), and 0.86 (GAP).

CONCLUSIONS

This study retrospectively applied seven triage tools to a database of 12,268 cases from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry to evaluate their performance in predicting early death or massive transfusion in combat. All scoring systems performed well with an AUROC >0.8 for both outcomes. Although the SI and MSI performed best for predicting massive transfusion (both had an AUROC of 0.89), they ranked last for assessment of mortality within 24 hours, with the other tools performing well. START, RTS, NTS, MGAP and GAP reliably identified early death and need for massive transfusion, with MGAP and GAP performing the best overall. These findings highlight the importance of assessing triage tools to best manage resources and ultimately preserve lives of traumatically wounded warfighters. Further studies are needed to explain the surprising performance discrepancy of the SI and MSI in predicting early death and massive transfusion.

摘要

引言

对于危重伤员,尽早合理分配资源至关重要。在大量伤员涌入且资源有限的情况下,这一点尤为重要,例如在大规模伤亡事件中。在院前战伤环境中,有多种评分系统得到了应用,包括休克指数(SI)、改良休克指数(MSI)、简单分诊和快速治疗(START)、修订创伤评分(RTS)、新创伤评分(NTS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表+年龄+压力(GAP)和机制+GAP(MGAP)评分。哪种评分系统最适合应用于战创伤人群仍不清楚。

材料与方法

这是对国防部创伤登记处 2007 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 17 日期间描述数据集的二次分析。我们进行了单变量分析,以确定感兴趣评分系统的接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)。我们的主要结局是 24 小时内早期死亡(定义为 24 小时内死亡)或早期大量输血,定义为≥3 个单位。

结果

共有 12268 名符合纳入标准的伤员。其中 168 名(1%)在 24 小时内死亡,2082 名(17%)在 24 小时内接受了大量输血。在评估 24 小时内死亡的预测能力时,AUROCs 分别为 0.72(SI)、0.69(MSI)、0.89(START)、0.90(RTS)、0.83(NTS)、0.90(GAP)和 0.91(MGAP)。大出血的 AUROCs 分别为 0.89(SI)、0.89(MSI)、0.82(START)、0.81(RTS)、0.83(NTS)、0.85(MGAP)和 0.86(GAP)。

结论

本研究回顾性地将七种分诊工具应用于国防部创伤登记处的 12268 例数据库,以评估它们在预测战斗中早期死亡或大量输血方面的性能。所有评分系统在预测早期死亡或大出血方面均表现良好,AUROC>0.8。尽管 SI 和 MSI 在预测大出血方面表现最好(AUROC 均为 0.89),但它们在预测 24 小时内死亡率方面排名最后,而其他工具表现良好。START、RTS、NTS、MGAP 和 GAP 可靠地识别早期死亡和大量输血的需要,MGAP 和 GAP 总体表现最佳。这些发现强调了评估分诊工具以最佳管理资源并最终挽救创伤性伤员生命的重要性。需要进一步的研究来解释 SI 和 MSI 在预测早期死亡和大出血方面令人惊讶的表现差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验