Jennings Michael, Booker James, Addison Amy, Egglestone Rebecca, Dushianthan Ahilanandan
General Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Department of Anaesthetics and Perioperative Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
F1000Res. 2024 Dec 6;12:974. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.138364.1. eCollection 2023.
Major trauma places substantial demand on critical care services, is a leading cause of death in under 40-year-olds and causes significant morbidity and mortality across all age groups. Various factors influence patient outcome and predefining these could allow prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of mortality from major trauma in intensive care.
This was a retrospective study of adult trauma patients admitted to general intensive care between January 2018 and December 2019. We assessed the impact on mortality of patient demographics, patterns of injury, injury scores (Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Charlson's comorbidity index (CCI), Acute Physiology and Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Probability of Survival Score (Ps19)), number of surgeries and mechanism of injury using logistic regression.
A total of 414 patients were included with a median age of 54 years (IQR 34-72). Overall mortality was 18.6%. The most common mechanism of injury was traffic collision (46%). Non-survivors were older, had higher ISS scores with lower GCS on admission and lower probability of survival scores. Factors independently predictive of mortality were age 70-80 (OR 3.267, p = 0.029), age >80 (OR 27.043, p < 0.001) and GCS < 15 (OR 8.728, p < 0.001). Ps19 was the best predictor of mortality (p <0.001 for each score category), with an AUROC of 0.90.
The significant mortality predictors were age, fall from <2 metres, injury of head or limbs, GCS <15 and Ps19. Contrary to previous studies, CCI and APACHE II did not significantly predict mortality. Although Ps19 was found to be the best current prognostic score, trauma prognostication would benefit from a single validated scoring system incorporating both physiological variables and injury patterns.
严重创伤对重症监护服务提出了巨大需求,是40岁以下人群的主要死因,且在所有年龄组中都会导致显著的发病率和死亡率。多种因素影响患者预后,预先确定这些因素有助于进行预后评估。本研究的目的是确定重症监护中严重创伤患者死亡率的预测因素。
这是一项对2018年1月至2019年12月期间入住普通重症监护病房的成年创伤患者的回顾性研究。我们使用逻辑回归评估了患者人口统计学、损伤模式、损伤评分(格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、查尔森合并症指数(CCI)、急性生理学与健康评估II(APACHE II)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和生存概率评分(Ps19))、手术次数和损伤机制对死亡率的影响。
共纳入414例患者,中位年龄为54岁(四分位间距34 - 72岁)。总体死亡率为18.6%。最常见的损伤机制是交通碰撞(46%)。非幸存者年龄较大,入院时ISS评分较高、GCS较低且生存概率评分较低。独立预测死亡率的因素为年龄70 - 80岁(比值比3.267,p = 0.029)、年龄>80岁(比值比27.043,p < 0.001)和GCS < 15(比值比8.728,p < 0.001)。Ps19是死亡率的最佳预测指标(每个评分类别p <0.001),曲线下面积为0.90。
显著的死亡率预测因素为年龄、从<2米高处坠落、头部或四肢损伤、GCS < 15和Ps19。与先前研究相反,CCI和APACHE II并未显著预测死亡率。虽然Ps19被发现是目前最佳的预后评分,但创伤预后评估将受益于一个整合生理变量和损伤模式的单一验证评分系统。