Hamdioğlu Enes, Altuntaş Mehmet, Çelik Ali, Yavaşi Özcan
Department of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Training and Research Hospital, Rize, Türkiye.
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Türkiye.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025 Jul 21;51(1):262. doi: 10.1007/s00068-025-02924-5.
The global increase in the geriatric population presents significant challenges for healthcare systems. Trauma, mainly resulting from falls, constitutes a primary cause of morbidity and mortality among older people. It is imperative to evaluate mortality risk and the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission among geriatric trauma patients to optimize clinical outcomes. This study aims to assess the efficacy of frailty and trauma scoring systems in predicting these critical outcomes.
A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Türkiye from September 2023 to October 2024. The study population consisted of geriatric patients (≥ 65 years) presenting blunt trauma. Comprehensive demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Mortality risk and ICU admission requirements were assessed utilizing various scoring systems: the Frailty Index (FI), Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI), Shock Index (SI), Modified Shock Index (MSI), Age Shock Index (ASI), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the predictive accuracy of these scores.
The cohort comprised 350 patients with a median age of 74 years. The mortality rate observed was 11%, with non-survivors had significantly higher frailty and trauma scores compared to survivors (p < 0.001). Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) was necessary in 20% of the cases. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the GTOS and RTS exhibited the highest and identical Area Under the Curve (AUC) values, both recorded at 0.846. Furthermore, the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for GTOS and RTS were 0.790-0.901 and 0.762-0.930, respectively, while the AUC for ICU admission requirements reached 0.830 (95% CI: 0.764-0.864) for RTS and 0.815 (95% CI: 0.755-0.876) for GTOS. Among the frailty scores, TSFI proved to be superior in predicting mortality, achieving an AUC of 0.805 (95% CI: 0.725-0.885), whereas the Frailty Index (FI) demonstrated the lowest predictive capacity for ICU needs, with an AUC of 0.666 (95% CI: 0.592-0.740).
Frailty and trauma scoring systems serve as critical tools in predicting outcomes for geriatric trauma patients. The Revised Trauma Score and the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score have demonstrated the highest reliability in forecasting both mortality and the need for ICU admissions. While the Trauma-Specific Frailty Index has exceeded other frailty indices in terms of mortality prediction, the Frailty Index exhibits limited utility for ICU evaluations. Integrating these scoring systems into clinical practice can significantly enhance the identification of high-risk patients and improve care strategies.
全球老年人口的增加给医疗系统带来了重大挑战。创伤,主要由跌倒引起,是老年人发病和死亡的主要原因。评估老年创伤患者的死亡风险和重症监护病房(ICU)收治需求对于优化临床结局至关重要。本研究旨在评估衰弱和创伤评分系统在预测这些关键结局方面的有效性。
2023年9月至2024年10月在土耳其一家三级医院进行了一项前瞻性横断面研究。研究人群包括出现钝性创伤的老年患者(≥65岁)。收集了全面的人口统计学、临床和实验室数据。使用多种评分系统评估死亡风险和ICU收治需求:衰弱指数(FI)、临床衰弱评分(CFS)、创伤特异性衰弱指数(TSFI)、休克指数(SI)、改良休克指数(MSI)、年龄休克指数(ASI)、修订创伤评分(RTS)、简明损伤定级(AIS)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、老年创伤结局评分(GTOS)和格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)。进行了受试者工作特征(ROC)分析以确定这些评分的预测准确性。
该队列包括350名患者,中位年龄为74岁。观察到的死亡率为11%,与幸存者相比,非幸存者的衰弱和创伤评分显著更高(p<0.001)。20%的病例需要入住重症监护病房(ICU)。受试者工作特征(ROC)分析显示,GTOS和RTS的曲线下面积(AUC)值最高且相同,均为0.846。此外,GTOS和RTS的95%置信区间(CI)分别为0.790 - 0.901和0.762 - 0.930,而对于ICU收治需求,RTS的AUC为0.830(95%CI:0.764 - 0.864),GTOS的AUC为0.815(95%CI:0.755 - 0.876)。在衰弱评分中,TSFI在预测死亡率方面表现更优,AUC为0.805(95%CI:0.725 - 0.885),而衰弱指数(FI)对ICU需求的预测能力最低,AUC为0.666(95%CI:0.592 - 0.740)。
衰弱和创伤评分系统是预测老年创伤患者结局的关键工具。修订创伤评分和老年创伤结局评分在预测死亡率和ICU收治需求方面表现出最高的可靠性。虽然创伤特异性衰弱指数在死亡率预测方面超过了其他衰弱指数,但衰弱指数在ICU评估中的效用有限。将这些评分系统整合到临床实践中可以显著提高对高危患者的识别并改善护理策略。