首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of trauma >The Predictive Value of Field versus Arrival Glasgow Coma Scale Score and TRISS Calculations in Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
【24h】

The Predictive Value of Field versus Arrival Glasgow Coma Scale Score and TRISS Calculations in Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

机译:现场对到达格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分和TRISS计算在中度至重度创伤性脑损伤中的预测价值

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores are widely used to quantify level of consciousness in the prehospital environment. The predictive value of field versus arrival GCS is not well defined but has tremendous implications with regard to triage and therapeutic decisions as well as the use of various predictive scoring systems, such as Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). This study explores the predictive value of field GCS (fGCS) and arrival GCS (aGCS) as well as TRISS calculations using field (fTRISS) and arrival (aTRISS) data in patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).Methods: Major trauma victims with head Abbreviated Injury Scores of 3 or greater were identified from our county trauma registry over a 16-year period. The predictive ability of fGCS with regard to aGCS was explored using univariate statistics and linear regression modeling.The difference between aGCS and fGCS was also modeled against mortality and the composite endpoint using logistic regression, adjusting for fGCS. The predictive value of preadmission GCS (pGCS), defined as either fGCS or aGCS in nonin-tubated patients without a documented fGCS, with regard to mortality and a composite endpoint representing the need for neurosurgical care (death, craniotomy, invasive intracranial pressure monitoring, or intensive care unit care >48 hours) was determined using receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis. Finally, fTRISS and aTRISS predicted survival values were compared with each other and to observed survival.Results:A total of 12,882 patients were included. Mean values for fGCS and aGCS were similar (11.4 and 11.5, respectively,/? = 0.336), and a strong correlation (r2 = 0.67, 95% CI 0.66-0.69, p < 0.0001) was observed between them. The differ-ence between fGCS and aGCS was also predictive of outcome after adjusting for fGCS. Good predictive ability was observed for pGCS with regard to both mortality and neurosurgical intervention. Both fTRISS and aTRISS predicted survival values were nearly identical to observed survival. Observed and fTRISS predicted survival were nearly identical in patients undergoing prehospital intubationConclusion:Values for fGCS are highly predictive of aGCS, and both are associated with outcome from TBI. A change in GCS from the field to arrival is highly predictive of outcome. The use of field data for TRISS calculations appears to be a valid methodological approach, even in severely injured TBI patients undergoing prehospital intubation.
机译:背景:格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分被广泛用于量化院前环境中的意识水平。野战对到达GCS的预测价值尚未明确定义,但在分类和治疗决策以及使用各种预测评分系统(例如创伤评分和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS))方面具有重大意义。本研究探讨了中度至重度颅脑损伤(TBI)患者的野外GCS(fGCS)和到达GCS(aGCS)的预测价值以及使用野外(fTRISS)和到达(aTRISS)数据进行的TRISS计算。 :在16年的时间里,从我们县的创伤登记处确定了头部缩写为3或更高的主要创伤受害者。使用单变量统计和线性回归模型探索了fGCS对aGCS的预测能力,还使用logistic回归(针对fGCS进行了调整)针对死亡率和复合终点对aGCS和fGCS之间的差异进行了建模。入院前GCS(pGCS)的预测价值,对于没有文献记载的fGCS的非插管患者,无论是死亡率还是综合终点均代表需要神经外科护理(死亡,开颅手术,侵入性颅内压监测,或使用重症监护病房(> 48小时)进行分析。最后,比较了fTRISS和aTRISS预测的生存值,并观察了生存率。结果:共纳入12,882例患者。 fGCS和aGCS的平均值相似(分别为11.4和11.5,/?= 0.336),并且它们之间观察到很强的相关性(r2 = 0.67,95%CI 0.66-0.69,p <0.0001)。调整fGCS后,fGCS和aGCS之间的差异也可预测结果。在死亡率和神经外科干预方面,pGCS均具有良好的预测能力。 fTRISS和aTRISS预测的生存值与观察到的生存率几乎相同。结论:fGCS的值可高度预测aGCS,两者均与TBI的预后相关。fGCS的预测值与fTRISS的预测生存率几乎相同。从现场到到达的GCS的变化高度预示了结果。即使在接受院前插管的重伤TBI患者中,使用现场数据进行TRISS计算似乎也是一种有效的方法论方法。

著录项

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