Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care & Emergency Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mortality Prediction in Trauma Patients using Three Different Physiological Trauma Scoring Systems

Danilo M Razente, Bruno D Alvarez, Daniel AM Lacerda, João MDS Biscardi, Marcia Olandoski, Luiz CV Bahten

Citation Information : Razente DM, Alvarez BD, Lacerda DA, Biscardi JM, Olandoski M, Bahten LC. Mortality Prediction in Trauma Patients using Three Different Physiological Trauma Scoring Systems. Panam J Trauma Crit Care Emerg Surg 2017; 6 (3):160-168.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1187

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

This study aims to compare mortality prediction capabilities of three different physiological trauma scoring systems (TSS): Revised Trauma Score (RTS) Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure (GAP) and Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP).

Study design

A descriptive, cross-sectional study of trauma victims admitted to the emergency service between December-2013 and February-2014. Clinical and epidemiological information were gathered at admission and three TSS were calculated: RTS, GAP, and MGAP. The follow-up period to assess length of hospitalization and mortality lasted until August-2014. Two groups were created — survivals (S) and deaths (D) — and compared. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 668 trauma victims were analyzed. The mean age was 37 ± 18 and 69.8% were males. Blunt trauma prevailed (90.6%). The mean scores of RTS, GAP, and MGAP for group S (n = 657; 98.4%) were 7.77 ± 0.33, 22.8 ± 1.7, and 27.4 ± 2.3 respectively (p < 0.001), whereas group D (n = 11, 1.6%) achieved mean scores of 4.57 ± 2.95, 13 ± 7, and 15.5 ± 7 (p < 0.001). Regarding the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis, the areas under the curve were 0.926 (RTS), 0.941 (GAP), and 0.981 (MGAP). The three TSS demonstrated significant mortality prediction capabilities (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the three ROC curves (p = 0.138). The MGAP achieved the highest sensitivity (100%), while GAP and RTS sensitivities were 81.8% (59—100%), and 90.9% (73.9—100%) respectively (p < 0.001). The observed specificities were 96.2% (94.77—97.7%) for GAP, 91.6% (89.5—93.7%) for MGAP, and 87.2% (84.7—89.8%) for RTS (p < 0.001). Age (p = 0.049), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (p < 0.001), and trauma mechanism (p < 0.001) were different between the two groups.

Conclusion

Most patients were young males and victims of blunt trauma. The three TSS demonstrated reliability regarding mortality prediction. The MGAP achieved the highest sensitivity and GAP was the most specific score, which may indicate a potential use of both as valuable alternatives to RTS.

How to cite this article

Razente DM, Alvarez BD, Lacerda DAM, Biscardi JMDS, Olandoski M, Bahten LCV. Mortality Prediction in Trauma Patients using Three Different Physiological Trauma Scoring Systems. Panam J Trauma Crit Care Emerg Surg 2017;6(3):160-168.

Objetivo

Avaliar o poder preditivo de mortalidade de três scores de trauma (ST): Score de trauma revisado (RTS); escala de coma de Glasgow, idade e pressão arterial (GAP); e mecanismo, escala de coma de Glasgow, idade e pressão arterial (MGAP).

Materiais e Métodos

Estudo transversal e descritivo envolvendo vítimas de trauma admitidas no serviço de emergência entre Dezembro-2013 e Fevereiro-2014. Informações clínicas e epidemiológicas foram coletadas na admissão e três ST foram calculados: RTS, GAP e MGAP. Houve seguimento até Agosto-2014 para avaliar tempo de hospitalização e mortalidade. Dois grupos foram criados — sobreviventes (S) e óbitos (O) - e comparados. Significância estatística adotada: p < 0,05.

Resultados

Analisaram-se 668 vítimas de trauma. Registrou-se média de idade de 37±18 anos, 69,8% sendo masculinos. Predominou o trauma contuso (90,6%). Para o grupo S (n = 657; 98,4%), as médias de RTS, GAP e MGAP foram, respectivamente, 7,77 ± 0,33, 22,8 ± 1,7 e 27,4 ± 2,3 (p < 0,001), enquanto o grupo O (n = 11, 1,6%) obteve médias de 4,57 ± 2,95, 13 ± 7 e 15,5 ± 7 (p < 0,001). A análise Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) revelou áreas abaixo da curva de 0,926 (RTS), 0,941 (GAP) e 0,981 (MGAP) (p<0,001). Todos os ST revelaram significativo poder preditivo de óbito (p < 0,001). As três curvas ROC não foram significativamente diferentes entre si (p = 0,138). MGAP atingiu a maior sensibilidade (100%), enquanto GAP e RTS obtiveram sensibilidades de 81,8% (59-100%) e 90,9% (73,9-100%). As especificidades foram de 96,2% (94,7-97,7%) para o GAP, 91,6% (89,5-93,7%) para o MGAP e 87,2% (84,7-89,8%) para o RTS. Idade (p = 0,049), escala de coma de Glasgow (p < 0,001) e mecanismo de trauma (p < 0,001) foram significativamente diferentes entre os dois grupos.

Conclusão

Observou-se predomínio de jovens masculinos, vítimas de trauma contuso. Os três ST demonstraram confiabilidade quanto à predição de óbito. MGAP atingiu a maior sensibilidade e GAP mostrou-se o mais específico, possivelmente indicando o uso de ambos como alternativas ao RTS.


  1. O que é trauma? [Internet]. [cited 2017 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.sbait.org.br/trauma.php
  2. O impacto econômico do trauma em um hospital universitário. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2003;30(3):224-229.
  3. Global status report on violence prevention 2014 [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014 Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/status_report/2014/en/
  4. Estimated lifetime medical and workloss costs of fatal injuries—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 2015 Oct 2;64(38): 1074-1077.
  5. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) Reports, 1999R2014 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Feb 2]. Available from: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/ypll10.htm
  6. Implementation of a trauma registry in a brazilian public hospital: the first 1,000 patients. Rev Col Bras Cir 2014;41(4):251-255.
  7. Epidemiology of trauma deaths. West Afr J Med 2003;22(2):177-181.
  8. Índices de trauma em pacientes submetidos à laparotomia. Rev Col Bras Cir 2004;31(5):399-306.
  9. Value of the Glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial blood pressure score for predicting the mortality of major trauma patients presenting to the emergency department. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2014 Jul;20(4):241-247.
  10. Validation and reclassification of MGAP and GAP in hospital settings using data from the Trauma Audit and Research Network. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014 Nov;77(5):757-763.
  11. . A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma 1989 May;29(5):623-629.
  12. Mechanism, glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP): a new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med 2010 Mar;38(3):831-837.
  13. Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow coma scale, age, and systolic blood pressure score. Crit Care 2011 Aug;15(4):1-8.
  14. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma score and the injury severity score. J Trauma 1987 Apr;27(4):370-378.
  15. Evaluation of trauma care using TRISS method: the role of adjusted misclassification rate and adjusted w-statistic. World J Emerg Surg 2009 Jan;4:2.
  16. Evaluation of MGAP and GAP Trauma Scores to Predict Prognosis of Multiple-trauma Patients. Trauma Mon 2017;22(3)1-6.
  17. Indicadores sociais mínimos [Internet]. [cited 2017 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/condicaodevida/indicadoresminimos/conceitos.shtm
  18. Perfil da população atendida em uma unidade de emergência referenciada. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem 2011;19(3):1-9.
  19. Canadian efforts to prevent and control hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2010 Aug-Sep;26(Suppl C):14C-7C.
  20. Changing epidemiology of trauma deaths leads to a bimodal distribution. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2010 Oct;23(4):349-354.
  21. Trauma outcome analysis of a Jakarta University Hospital using the TRISS method: validation and limitation in comparison with the major trauma outcome study. Trauma and injury severity score. J Trauma. 2001 July;51(1):134-140.
  22. Mortality factors in geriatric blunt trauma patients: creation of a highly predictive statistical model for mortality using 50,765 consecutive elderly trauma admissions from the National Sample Project. Am Surg 2012;78(12):1369-1375.
  23. Practice management guidelines for geriatric trauma: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group. J Trauma 2003 Feb;54(2):391-416.
  24. The effect of preexisting conditions on mortality in trauma patients. JAMA [Internet]. 1990 Apr 11;263(14):1942-1946.
  25. Mortality factors in major trauma patients: Nation-wide population-based research in Taiwan. Int J Gerontol [Internet]. 2014;8(1):18-21.
  26. Scoring systems of severity in patients with multiple trauma. Cir Esp 2015 Apr;93(4):213-221.
  27. The modified rapid emergency medicine score: a novel trauma triage tool to predict in-hospital mortality. Injury 2017 Sep;48(9):1870-1877.
  28. Prediction of intra-hospital mortality after severe trauma: which pre-hospital score is the most accurate? Injury 2016 Jan;47(1):14-18.
  29. Scoring severity in trauma: comparison of prehospital scoring systems in trauma ICU patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017 Jun;43(3):351-357.
  30. Comparing traditional and novel injury scoring systems in US level I trauma center: an opportunity for improved injury surveillance in low-and middle-income countries. J Surg Res 2017 Jul;215:60-66.
  31. Scoring systems of severity in patients with multiple trauma. Cir Esp 2015 Apr;93(4):213-221.
  32. The modified rapid emergency medicine score: A novel trauma triage tool to predict in-hospital mortality. Injury 48(2017):1870-1877.
  33. Prediction of intra-hospital mortality after severe trauma: which pre-hospital score is the most accurate? Injury 2016 Jan;47(1):14-18.
  34. Scoring severity in trauma: comparison of prehospital scoring systems in trauma ICU patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017 Jun;43(3):351-357.
  35. Comparing traditional and novel injury scoring systems in US level-I trauma center: an opportunity for improved injury surveillance in low- and middle-income countries. J Surg Res 2017 Jul;215:60-66.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.