首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine >Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective cohort study
【24h】

Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective cohort study

机译:一项回顾性队列研究将新的损伤严重程度评分与解剖多创伤损伤变量相结合,可预测死亡率优于新的损伤严重程度评分和损伤严重程度评分

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Anatomy-based injury severity scores are commonly used with physiological scores for reporting severity of injury in a standardized manner. However, there is lack of consensus on choice of scoring system, with the commonly used injury severity score (ISS) performing poorly for certain sub-groups, eg head-injured patients. We hypothesized that adding a dichotomous variable for polytrauma (yeso for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of 3 or more in at least two body regions) to the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) would improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in injured patients, including head-injured patients—a subgroup that has a disproportionately high mortality. Our secondary hypothesis was that the ISS over-estimates the risk of death in polytrauma patients, while the NISS under-estimates it. Methods Univariate and multivariable analysis was performed on retrospective cohort data of blunt injured patients aged 18 and over with an ISS over 9 from the Singapore National Trauma Registry from 2011–2013. Model diagnostics were tested using discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). All models included age, gender, and comorbidities. Results Our results showed that the polytrauma and NISS model outperformed the other models (polytrauma and ISS, NISS alone or ISS alone) in predicting 30-day and in-hospital mortality. The NISS underestimated the risk of death for patients with polytrauma, while the ISS overestimated the risk of death for these patients. When used together with the NISS and polytrauma, categorical variables for deranged physiology (systolic blood pressure of 90?mmHg or less, GCS of 8 or less) outperformed the traditional ‘ISS and RTS (Revised Trauma Score)’ model, with a c-statistic of greater than 0.90. This could be useful in cases when the RTS cannot be scored due to missing respiratory rate. Discussion The NISS and polytrauma model is superior to current scores for prediction of 30-day and in-hospital mortality. We propose that this score replace the ISS or NISS in institutions using AIS-based scores. Conclusions Adding polytrauma to the NISS or ISS improves prediction of 30-day mortality. The superiority of the NISS or ISS depends on the proportion of polytrauma and head-injured patients in the study population.
机译:背景技术基于解剖学的损伤严重程度评分通常与生理评分一起用于以标准化方式报告损伤严重程度。但是,对于评分系统的选择尚无共识,对于某些亚组(例如头部受伤的患者),常用的损伤严重度评分(ISS)表现较差。我们假设将多伤的二分变量(在至少两个身体区域中,对于至少两个身体区域的3个或更多的简短伤害量表(AIS)评分为是/否)添加二分变量将改善对院内死亡率的预测在受伤的患者中,包括在头部受伤的患者中,这是死亡率极高的亚组。我们的第二个假设是,ISS过度估计了多发伤患者的死亡风险,而NISS则低估了它。方法对2011-2013年新加坡国家创伤登记处对年龄在18岁及以上,ISS≥9的钝伤患者的回顾性队列数据进行单因素和多因素分析。使用区分度(c统计量)和校准(Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度统计量)对模型诊断程序进行测试。所有模型都包括年龄,性别和合并症。结果我们的结果表明,在预测30天和住院期间的死亡率方面,多创伤和NISS模型优于其他模型(多创伤和ISS,仅NISS或仅ISS)。 NISS低估了多发伤患者的死亡风险,而ISS高估了这些患者的死亡风险。当与NISS和多创伤一起使用时,生理异常的分类变量(收缩压为90?mmHg或更低,GCS为8或更低)优于传统的“ ISS和RTS(修订的创伤评分)”模型,其c-统计数据大于0.90。如果由于缺少呼吸频率而无法对RTS进行评分,这可能会很有用。讨论NISS和多创伤模型在预测30天和医院内死亡率方面优于当前评分。我们建议使用基于AIS的分数,该分数代替机构中的ISS或NISS。结论在NISS或ISS中增加多创伤可以改善30天死亡率的预测。 NISS或ISS的优越性取决于研究人群中多发伤和头部受伤患者的比例。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号