Dunham C Michael, Huang Gregory S, Chance Elisha A, Hileman Barbara M
Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mercy Health, St. Elizabeth Youngstown Hospital, Youngstown, USA.
Trauma and Neuroscience Research, Mercy Health, St. Elizabeth Youngstown Hospital, Youngstown, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Nov 9;16(11):e73341. doi: 10.7759/cureus.73341. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Objectives Because the Injury Severity Score (ISS) has not been fully endorsed for determining trauma undertriage, we investigated its precision. This study aimed to 1) compute undertriage proportions using the Peng and Cribari methods; 2) compare risk conditions and outcomes for patients with ISS ≥16 who were classified according to an activation or consultation status; 3) calculate proportions of patients with ISS ≥16, without and with qualifications (death or increased length of stay), as potential categories for assessing undertriage in trauma consultation patients; and 4) compute the undertriage proportion among trauma consultation patients by using an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)-Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS)-ISS categorization method and employing targeted electronic medical record audits (EMRA). Methodology Age, ISS, GCS, activation status (full, partial, or consultation), injury mechanism, death, intensive care stay, and hospital stay were obtained from the trauma registry. An adverse outcome (AO) was death, intensive care stay ≥two days, or hospital stay >five days. ICH status, clinical details, and comorbidity were obtained from EMRA. Each consultation patient was assigned to an ICH-GCS-ISS category with targeted EMRA. Results Of 2,076 consecutive trauma center admissions, 405 had full activation, 640 had partial activation, and 1,031 had consultation. Using Peng and Cribari methods, undertriage proportions were 64.2% and 21.7%, respectively. Compared with consultation patients with ISS ≥16, full or partial activation patients with ISS ≥16 had much higher proportions (p<0.0001) of non-fall mechanisms, age <70 years, GCS <15, ISS ≥25, mortality, intensive care admission, and hospital stay >five days. The proportions of consultation nonqualified ISS ≥16 undertriage and ISS ≥16-AO undertriage were 21.1% (218 ISS ≥16÷1,031) and 9.8% (101 ISS ≥16-AO÷1,031), respectively. Of the 101 ISS ≥16-AO patients, 79.2% were aged ≥70 years or had comorbidity. The consultation ISS ≥16-death undertriage proportion was 1.5% (15 ISS ≥16-deaths÷1,031). The ICH-GCS-ISS consultation categorization undertriage proportion was 11.0% (113÷1,031). ICH-GCS-ISS undertriage proportions were as follows: ICH with GCS <15, 77/77; no ICH with ISS ≥16 (EMRA for major injury), 14/60; scene ICH & GCS 15 & ISS ≥16, 0/43; transfer ICH & GCS 15 & ISS ≥16 (EMRA for intracranial mass effect), 22/69; no ICH with ISS <16, 0/629; and ICH & GCS 15 & ISS <16, 0/153. Conclusions Because ISS ≥16 consultation and activation patient risk conditions and outcomes are dissimilar, commingling these cohorts for undertriage assessment is dubious. Death and increased length of stay-qualified ISS ≥16 with EMRA can be useful to assess undertriage in trauma consultation patients. Because most ISS ≥16-AO consultations were elderly or had comorbidity, the benefit of trauma activation is uncertain. Consultation ICH-GCS-ISS categorization with EMRA was needed in only 12%, indicating a relatively facile undertriage method.
目的 由于损伤严重度评分(ISS)在确定创伤治疗不足方面尚未得到充分认可,我们对其准确性进行了调查。本研究旨在:1)使用彭氏和克里巴里方法计算治疗不足比例;2)比较根据激活或会诊状态分类的ISS≥16患者的风险状况和结局;3)计算ISS≥16且无资格限定(死亡或住院时间延长)以及有资格限定的患者比例,作为评估创伤会诊患者治疗不足的潜在类别;4)通过使用颅内出血(ICH)-格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分(GCS)-ISS分类方法并采用针对性电子病历审核(EMRA)来计算创伤会诊患者中的治疗不足比例。
方法 从创伤登记处获取年龄、ISS、GCS、激活状态(完全、部分或会诊)、损伤机制、死亡情况、重症监护住院时间和住院时间。不良结局(AO)为死亡、重症监护住院时间≥2天或住院时间>5天。从EMRA中获取ICH状态、临床细节和合并症。通过针对性EMRA将每位会诊患者分配到ICH-GCS-ISS类别。
结果 在2076例连续入住创伤中心的患者中,405例为完全激活,640例为部分激活,1031例为会诊。使用彭氏和克里巴里方法,治疗不足比例分别为64.2%和21.7%。与ISS≥16的会诊患者相比,ISS≥16的完全或部分激活患者中非跌倒机制、年龄<70岁、GCS<15、ISS≥25、死亡率、重症监护入院率和住院时间>5天的比例要高得多(p<0.0001)。会诊中不符合资格的ISS≥16治疗不足和ISS≥16-AO治疗不足的比例分别为21.1%(218例ISS≥16÷1031)和9.8%(101例ISS≥16-AO÷1031)。在101例ISS≥16-AO患者中,79.2%的患者年龄≥70岁或患有合并症。会诊中ISS≥16-死亡治疗不足比例为1.5%(15例ISS≥16-死亡÷1031)。ICH-GCS-ISS会诊分类治疗不足比例为11.0%(113÷1031)。ICH-GCS-ISS治疗不足比例如下:ICH且GCS<15,77/77;无ICH且ISS≥16(重大损伤的EMRA),14/60;现场ICH且GCS 15且ISS≥16,0/43;转运ICH且GCS 15且ISS≥16(颅内占位效应的EMRA),22/69;无ICH且ISS<16,0/629;以及ICH且GCS 15且ISS<16,0/153。
结论 由于ISS≥16的会诊和激活患者的风险状况和结局不同,将这些队列合并用于治疗不足评估值得怀疑。通过EMRA确定的死亡和住院时间延长且符合资格的ISS≥16可用于评估创伤会诊患者的治疗不足。由于大多数ISS≥16-AO会诊患者为老年人或患有合并症,创伤激活的益处尚不确定需进一步研究。采用EMRA的会诊ICH-GCS-ISS分类仅在12%的情况下需要,表明这是一种相对简便的治疗不足评估方法。