Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Prediction of Outcomes in Trauma: Anatomic or Physiologic Parameters?

Authors
Journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
1072-7515
Publisher
Elsevier
Publication Date
Volume
201
Issue
6
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.07.013
Disciplines
  • Biology

Abstract

Background Prediction of outcomes after injury has traditionally incorporated measures of injury severity, but recent studies suggest that including physiologic and shock measures can improve accuracy of anatomic-based models. A recent single-institution study described a mortality predictive equation [f(x) = 3.48 − .22 (GCS) − .08 (BE) + .08 (Tx) + .05 (ISS) + .04 (Age)], where GSC is Glasgow Coma Score, BE is base excess, Tx is transfusion requirement, and ISS is Injury Severity Score, which had 63% sensitivity, 94% specificity, (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] 0.96), but did not provide comparative data for other models. We have previously documented that the Physiologic Trauma Score, including only physiologic variables (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Glasgow Coma Score, age) also accurately predicts mortality in trauma. The objective of this study was to compare the predictive abilities of these statistical models in trauma outcomes. Methods Area under the ROC curve of sensitivity versus 1-specificity was used to assess predictive ability and measured discrimination of the models. Results The study cohort consisted of 15,534 trauma patients (80% blunt mechanism) admitted to a Level I trauma center over a 3-year period (mean age 37 ± 18 years; mean Injury Severity Score 10 ± 10; mortality 4%). Sensitivity of the new predictive model was 45%, specificity was 96%, ROC was 0.91, validating this new trauma outcomes model in our institution. This was comparable with area under the ROC for Revised Trauma Score (ROC 0.88), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (ROC 0.97), and Physiologic Trauma Score (ROC 0.95), but superior compared with admission Glasgow Coma Score (ROC 0.79), Injury Severity Score (ROC 0.79), and age (ROC 0.60). Conclusions The predictive ability of this new model is superior to anatomic-based models such as Injury Severity Score, but comparable with other physiologic-based models such as Revised Trauma Score, Physiologic Trauma Score and Trauma, and Injury Severity Score.

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Statistics

Seen <100 times
0 Comments

More articles like this

Prediction of outcomes in trauma: anatomic or phys...

on Journal of the American Colleg... December 2005

Value of anatomic and physiologic scoring systems...

on European journal of emergency... April 2014

A correlation of anatomic and physiologic paramete...

on Investigative urology January 1974
More articles like this..