Novel Trauma Composite Score is superior to Injury Severity Score in predicting mortality across all ages.
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Glasgow Coma Scale
Humans
Injury Severity Score
Male
Middle Aged
Registries
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Sex Factors
Trauma Centers
/ statistics & numerical data
Wounds, Nonpenetrating
/ diagnosis
Wounds, Penetrating
/ diagnosis
Young Adult
Journal
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery
ISSN: 2163-0763
Titre abrégé: J Trauma Acute Care Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101570622
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2021
01 10 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
entrez:
5
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Injury Severity Score (ISS) is a widely used metric for trauma research and center verification; however, it does not account for age-related physiologic parameters. We hypothesized that a novel age-based injury severity metric would better predict mortality. Adult patients (≥18 years) sustaining blunt trauma (BT) or penetrating trauma (PT) were abstracted from the 2010 to 2016 National Trauma Data Bank. Admission vitals, Glasgow Coma Scale, ISS, mechanism, and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with incomplete/non-physiologic vital signs were excluded. For each age: (1) a cut point analysis was used to determine the ISS with the highest specificity and sensitivity for predicting mortality and (2) a linear discriminant analysis was performed using ISS, ISS greater than 16, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and Revised Trauma Scale to compare each scoring system's mortality prediction. A novel injury severity metric, the trauma component score (TCS), was developed for each age using significant (p < 0.05) variables selected from Abbreviated Injury Scale scores, Glasgow Coma Scale, vital signs, and gender. Receiver operator curves were developed and the areas under the curve were compared between the TCS and other systems. There 777,794 patients studied (BT, 91.1%; PT, 8.9%). Blunt trauma patients were older (53.6 ± 21.3 years vs. 34.4 ± 13.8 years), had higher ISS scores (11.1 ± 8.5 vs. 8.5 ± 8.9), and lower mortality (2.9% vs. 3.4%) than PT patients (p < 0.05). When assessing the entire PT and BT cohort the optimal ISS cut point was 16. The optimal ISS was between 20 and 25 for BT younger than 70 years. For those older than 70 years, the optimal BT ISS steadily declined as age increased PT's cut point was 16 or less for all ages assessed. When the injury metrics were compared by area under the curve, our novel TCS more accurately predicted mortality across all ages in both BT and PT (p < 0.001). Injury Severity Score is a poor mortality predictor in older patients and those sustaining penetrating trauma. The age-based TCS is a superior metric for mortality prediction across all ages. Clinical outcomes, Level IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Injury Severity Score (ISS) is a widely used metric for trauma research and center verification; however, it does not account for age-related physiologic parameters. We hypothesized that a novel age-based injury severity metric would better predict mortality.
METHODS
Adult patients (≥18 years) sustaining blunt trauma (BT) or penetrating trauma (PT) were abstracted from the 2010 to 2016 National Trauma Data Bank. Admission vitals, Glasgow Coma Scale, ISS, mechanism, and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with incomplete/non-physiologic vital signs were excluded. For each age: (1) a cut point analysis was used to determine the ISS with the highest specificity and sensitivity for predicting mortality and (2) a linear discriminant analysis was performed using ISS, ISS greater than 16, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and Revised Trauma Scale to compare each scoring system's mortality prediction. A novel injury severity metric, the trauma component score (TCS), was developed for each age using significant (p < 0.05) variables selected from Abbreviated Injury Scale scores, Glasgow Coma Scale, vital signs, and gender. Receiver operator curves were developed and the areas under the curve were compared between the TCS and other systems.
RESULTS
There 777,794 patients studied (BT, 91.1%; PT, 8.9%). Blunt trauma patients were older (53.6 ± 21.3 years vs. 34.4 ± 13.8 years), had higher ISS scores (11.1 ± 8.5 vs. 8.5 ± 8.9), and lower mortality (2.9% vs. 3.4%) than PT patients (p < 0.05). When assessing the entire PT and BT cohort the optimal ISS cut point was 16. The optimal ISS was between 20 and 25 for BT younger than 70 years. For those older than 70 years, the optimal BT ISS steadily declined as age increased PT's cut point was 16 or less for all ages assessed. When the injury metrics were compared by area under the curve, our novel TCS more accurately predicted mortality across all ages in both BT and PT (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Injury Severity Score is a poor mortality predictor in older patients and those sustaining penetrating trauma. The age-based TCS is a superior metric for mortality prediction across all ages.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Clinical outcomes, Level IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34225345
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003340
pii: 01586154-202110000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
621-626Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr., Long WB. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma . 1974;14(3):187–196.
Kilgo PD, Meredith JW, Hensberry R, Osler TM. A note on the disjointed nature of the injury severity score. J Trauma . 2004;57(3):479–485; discussion 486-487.
Aharonson-Daniel L, Giveon A, Stein M, Peleg K. Different AIS triplets: different mortality predictions in identical ISS and NISS. J Trauma . 2006;61(3):711–717.
Chawda MN, Hildebrand F, Pape HC, Giannoudis PV. Predicting outcome after multiple trauma: which scoring system? Injury . 2004;35(4):347–358.
Osler T, Baker SP, Long W. A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma . 1997;43(6):922–925.
Frankema SP, Steyerberg EW, Edwards MJ, van Vugt AB. Comparison of current injury scales for survival chance estimation: an evaluation comparing the predictive performance of the ISS, NISS, and AP Scores in a Dutch Local Trauma Registration. J Trauma . 2005;58(3):596–604.
Palmer C. Major trauma and the injury severity score—where should we set the bar? Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med . 2007;51:13–29.
Furnival RA, Schunk JE. ABCs of scoring systems for pediatric trauma. Pediatr Emerg Care . 1999;15(3):215–223.
Marcin JP, Pollack MM. Triage scoring systems, severity of illness measures, and mortality prediction models in pediatric trauma. Crit Care Med . 2002;30(Supplement):S457–S467.
Brown JB, Gestring ML, Leeper CM, Sperry JL, Peitzman AB, Billiar TR, Gaines BA. The value of the injury severity score in pediatric trauma: time for a new definition of severe injury? J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2017;82(6):995–1001.
Joseph B, Hassan A. Geriatric trauma patients: what is the difference? Curr Surg Rep . 2016;4(1):1.
Kerem Y, Watts H, Kulstad E. Evaluation of the revised trauma and injury severity scores in elderly trauma patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock . 2012;5(2):131.
Rowell SE, Barbosa RR, Diggs BS, Schreiber MA. Specific Abbreviated Injury Scale values are responsible for the underestimation of mortality in penetrating trauma patients by the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma . 2011;71:S384–S388.
López-Ratón M, Rodríguez-Álvarez MX, Cadarso-Suárez C, Gude-Sampedro F. OptimalCutpoints: an R package for selecting optimal cutpoints in diagnostic tests. J Stat Softw . 2014;61(8):1–36.
Efron B, Rogosa D, Tibshirani R. Resampling Methods of Estimation. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences . Elsevier; 2001.
Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds OR, Moret BM, Stamatakis A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? J Comput Biol . 2010;17(3):337–354.
Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S . 4th ed. Springer, New York.
Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis . Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org .
Keskey RC, Hampton DA, Biermann H, Cirone J, Zakrison TL, Cone JT, Wilson KL, Slidell MB. Novel trauma composite score is a more reliable predictor of mortality than injury severity score in pediatric trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2021. [Online Ahead of Print].
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME. A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma . 1989;29(5):623–629.
Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma . 1987;27(4):370–378.
Millham FH, LaMorte WW. Factors associated with mortality in trauma: re-evaluation of the TRISS method using the National Trauma Data Bank. J Trauma . 2004;56(5):1090–1096.
Hammer PM, Storey AC, Bell T, Bayt D, Hockaday MS, Zarzaur BL Jr., Feliciano DV, Rozycki GS. Improving geriatric trauma outcomes: a small step toward a big problem. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2016;81(1):162–167.
Salottolo KM, Mains CW, Offner PJ, Bourg PW, Bar-Or D. A retrospective analysis of geriatric trauma patients: venous lactate is a better predictor of mortality than traditional vital signs. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med . 2013;21(1):7.
Joseph B, Pandit V, Zangbar B, et al. Superiority of frailty over age in predicting outcomes among geriatric trauma patients: a prospective analysis. JAMA Surg . 2014;149(8):766–772.
Kirshenbom D, Ben-Zaken Z, Albilya N, Niyibizi E, Bala M. Older age, comorbid illnesses, and injury severity affect immediate outcome in elderly trauma patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock . 2017;10(3):146–150.
Gausche-Hill M, Hartmans S, Bongard F, et al. A comparison of rural versus urban trauma care. J Emerg Trauma Shock . 2014;7(1):41–46.
Newgard CD, Fu R, Bulger E, et al. Evaluation of rural vs urban trauma patients served by 9-1-1 emergency medical services. JAMA Surg . 2017;152(1):11–18.