scholarly journals ICU-Admission Hyperphosphataemia Is Related to Shock and Tissue Damage, Indicating Injury Severity and Mortality in Polytrauma Patients

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1548
Author(s):  
Christopher Rugg ◽  
Mirjam Bachler ◽  
Robert Kammerlander ◽  
Daniel Niederbrunner ◽  
Johannes Bösch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Tissue Damage ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Single Centre Study ◽  
Polytrauma Patients

Hyperphosphataemia can originate from tissue ischaemia and damage and may be associated with injury severity in polytrauma patients. In this retrospective, single-centre study, 166 polytrauma patients (injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16) primarily requiring intensive care unit (ICU) treatment were analysed within a five-year timeframe. ICU-admission phosphate levels defined a hyperphosphataemic (>1.45 mmol/L; n = 56) opposed to a non-hyperphosphataemic group (n = 110). In the hyperphosphataemic group, injury severity was increased (ISS median and IQR: 38 (30–44) vs. 26 (22–34); p < 0.001), as were signs of shock (lactate, resuscitation requirements), tissue damage (ASAT, ALAT, creatinine) and lastly in-hospital mortality (35.7% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.001). Hyperphosphataemia at ICU admission was shown to be a risk factor for mortality (1.46–2.10 mmol/L: odds ratio (OR) 3.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–15.16); p = 0.045; >2.10 mmol/L: OR 12.81 (CI 3.45–47.48); p < 0.001) and admission phosphate levels alone performed as good as injury severity score (ISS) in predicting in-hospital mortality (area under the ROC curve: 0.811 vs. 0.770; p = 0.389). Hyperphosphataemia at ICU admission is related to tissue damage and shock and indicates injury severity and subsequent mortality in polytrauma patients. Admission phosphate levels represent an easily feasible yet strong predictor for in-hospital mortality.

scholarly journals Performance of injury severity measures in trauma research: a literature review and validation analysis of studies from low-income and middle-income countries

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e023161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber Mehmood ◽  
Yuen W Hung ◽  
Huan He ◽  
Shahmir Ali ◽  
Abdul M Bachani
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Validation Studies ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
War Injuries ◽  
Trauma Research ◽  
Middle Income Countries

IntroductionCharacterisation of injury severity is an important pillar of scientific research to measure and compare the outcomes. Although majority of injury severity measures were developed in high-income countries, many have been studied in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted this study to identify and characterise all injury severity measures, describe how widely and frequently they are used in trauma research from LMICs, and summarise the evidence on their performance based on empirical and theoretical validation​ analysis.MethodsFirst, a list of injury measures was identified through PubMed search. Subsequently, a systematic search of PubMed, Global Health and EMBASE was undertaken on LMIC trauma literature published from January 2006 to June 2016, in order to assess the application and performance of injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality. Studies that applied one or more global injury severity measure(s) on all types of injuries were included, with the exception of war injuries and isolated organ injuries.ResultsOver a span of 40 years, more than 55 injury severity measures were developed. Out of 3862 non-duplicate citations, 597 studies from 54 LMICs were listed as eligible studies. Full-text review revealed 37 studies describing performance of injury severity measures for outcome prediction. Twenty-five articles from 13 LMICs assessed the validity of at least one injury severity measure for in-hospital mortality. Injury severity score was the most commonly validated measure in LMICs, with a wide range of performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) between 0.9 and 0.65). Trauma and Injury Severity Score validation studies reported AUROC between 0.80 and 0.98.ConclusionEmpirical studies from LMICs frequently use injury severity measures, however, no single injury severity measure has shown a consistent result in all settings or populations and thus warrants validation studies for the diversity of LMIC population.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcome and Management for Geriatric Traumatic Injury: Analysis of 2688 Cases in the Emergency Department of a Teaching Hospital in Taiwan

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng-Yu Wu ◽  
Yu-Long Chen ◽  
Giou-Teng Yiang ◽  
Chia-Jung Li ◽  
Amy Lin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Traumatic Injury ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Shock Index ◽  
New Injury Severity Score

Geriatric traumatic injuries in emergency departments are frequent and associated with higher mortality rates and catastrophic functional outcomes. Several prediction scores have been established to manage traumatic patients, including the shock index (SI), revised trauma score (RTS), injury severity score (ISS), trauma injury severity score (TRISS), and new injury severity score (NISS). However, it was necessary to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of care for the geriatric traumatic population. In addition, image studies such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging play an important role in early diagnosis and timely intervention. However, few studies focus on this aspect. The association between the benefit of carrying out more image studies and clinical outcomes remains unclear. In this study, we included a total of 2688 traumatic patients and analyzed the clinical outcomes and predicting factors in terms of geriatric trauma via pre-hospital and in-hospital analysis. Our evaluation revealed that a shock index ≥1 may be not a strong predictor of geriatric trauma due to the poor physical response in the aging population. This should be modified in geriatric patients. Other systems, like RTS, ISS, TRISS, and NISS, were significant in terms of predicting the clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Change in Age Distribution of the Injuries and Comparison of Different Scoring Tools in Predicting Mortality Among Geriatric Trauma Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libing Jiang ◽  
Zhongjun Zheng ◽  
Mao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Survival Group ◽  
Elderly Trauma Patients ◽  
Scoring Tools ◽  
Death Group

Abstract Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the age trend of trauma patients and to compare different scoring tools to predict in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients.Methods: National Trauma Database (NTDB) in the United States from 2005 to 2015 and the Trauma Register DGU® in German from 1994 to 2012 was searched to describe age change of trauma patients. Then we secondly analyzed the data published in http://datadryad.org/. According to the in-hospital survival status, patients were divided into survival group and non-survival group. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluated the value of ISS (injury severity score); NISS (new injury severity score), APACHE Ⅱ (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ), SPAS Ⅱ (simplified acute physiology score Ⅱ) and TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score) in predicting in-hospital mortality among geriatric trauma patients.Results:The analysis of NTDB showed the percentage of geriatric trauma has increased from 0.18 to 0.30, 2005-2015. The analysis of DGU showed the mean age rose from 39.11 in 1993 to 51.10 in 2013, and the percentage of patients aged ≥60 rose from 16.5% to 37.5%. A total of 311 patients aged more than 65 years were secondly analyzed. One hundred and sixty-four (52.73%) patients died in the hospital. ISS, NISS, APACHE, and SAPS in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group, but TRISS in the death group was significantly lower than those in the survival group. The AUC of APACHE Ⅱ was 0.715, ISS was 0.807, NISS was 0.850, SPAS Ⅱ was 0.725, and TRISS was 0.828.Conclusion:The increasing number of trauma in the elderly is a challenge for current and future trauma management. Compared with APACHE and SAPS, ISS, NISS and TRISS are more suitable for predicting in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients.

scholarly journals Study of the efficacy of trauma and injury severity score to predict survival in patients of polytrauma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anant Singh ◽  
Raj K. Chejara ◽  
Ashok K. Sharma ◽  
Aditya Tolat
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Care ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Physiological Status ◽  
Polytrauma Patients ◽  
Trauma And Injury

Background: Trauma is one of the major cause of mortality and morbidity in both developed and developing countries. Polytrauma patients present particular challenges as profile of the patient varies with different types and severity of injuries. Prediction of survival in trauma patients is an essential requirement of trauma care. Trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) have been considered as a standard of the quality of trauma care. Study was carried out to evaluate the performance of TRISS in predicting survival in patients of polytrauma.Methods: Prospective observational study was conducted in emergency department of a tertiary care centre. 100 patients were evaluated in the study for a period of 18 months between November 2019 and April 2021. Patient demographics, details of trauma, pattern of injuries and physiological status were recorded. Overall outcome were studied and data analysis was done on the basis of TRISS. Statistical analysis was performed using statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) program for windows, version 25.0 (SPSS Chicago, Illinois).Results: Young patients with mean age of 34.54 were most commonly affected in polytrauma with male preponderance. Road traffic accidents were the most common mode of trauma followed by fall from height. Blunt trauma was the most common type of injury. TRISS strongly predicted survival in polytrauma patients (AUC 0.926 CI 95% 0.868-0.985). TRISS has high sensitivity 97.62% and specificity 62.50% at a cut off of 64.50%.Conclusions: TRISS is an effective method for predicting survival of polytrauma patients and thus can be utilized to evaluate and compare trauma care.

EVALUATION THE PROGNOSIS OF POLYTRAUMATIC PATIENTS WITH INJURY SEVERITY SCORE (ISS)

2017 ◽  
pp. 16-19
Author(s):  
Dzuy Vu ◽  
Viet Trung Lam
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Traffic Accidents ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Point Group ◽  
Traumatic Shock ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Polytrauma Patients ◽  
Total Point

Objectives:Surveying the relationship between Injury Severity Score features polytrauma patients.Survey correlation between Injury Severity Scorewith mortality in polytrauma patients. Subjects of study:75 patients aged 16 years, was diagnosed multiple injuries worse prognosis in the Emergency Department, Cho Ray Hospital from January 2015 to September 2015. Method: Cross-sectional descriptive. Results: Percentage of patients with polytrauma patients total points ISS > 40 points was 38.4%. Traffic accidents, patients with total points ISS > 40 points was 36.2%, labor accidents, the number of patients with total points ISS > 40 points was 54.5%. The difference was not statistically significant with p> 0.05. The percentage of patients with total points ISS > 40 points in the group with traumatic shock 48.2%, higher than the group without shock trauma. The differences are statistically significant at p <0.05. Patients with clotting disorders, who have a total point group ISS > 40 points accounted for 50%, higher than the group without coagulopathy. The differences are statistically significant at p <0.05. Patients with a total score ISS > 40 points, mortality or severe to very high, accounting for 53.6%, the differences are statistically significant with p <0.001. Key words: Polytrauma, ISS scale, Cho Ray Hospital

scholarly journals The incidence of geriatric trauma is increasing and comparison of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Libing Jiang ◽  
Zhongjun Zheng ◽  
Mao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Survival Group ◽  
Saps Ii ◽  
Scoring Tools

Abstract Purpose The study aimed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma and evaluate the predictive ability of different scoring tools for in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients. Methods Annual reports released by the National Trauma Database (NTDB) in the USA from 2005 to 2015 and the Trauma Register DGU® in Germany from 1994 to 2012 were analyzed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma. Secondary analysis of a single-center cohort study conducted among 311 severely injured geriatric trauma patients in a level I trauma center in Switzerland was completed. According to the in-hospital survival status, patients were divided into the survival and non-survival group. The differences of the ISS (injury severity score), NISS (new injury severity score), TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), and SPAS II (simplified acute physiology score II) between two groups were evaluated. Then, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were calculated. Results The analysis of the NTDB showed that the increase in the number of geriatric trauma ranged from 18 to 30% between 2005 and 2015. The analysis of the DGU® showed that the mean age of trauma patients rose from 39.11 in 1993 to 51.10 in 2013, and the proportion of patients aged ≥ 60 years rose from 16.5 to 37.5%. The findings from the secondary analysis showed that 164 (52.73%) patients died in the hospital. The ISS, NISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group, and the TRISS in the death group was significantly lower than those in the survival group. The AUCs of the ISS, NISS, TRISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were 0.807, 0.850, 0.828, 0.715, and 0.725, respectively. Conclusion The total number of geriatric trauma is increasing as the population ages. The accuracy of ISS, NISS and TRISS was higher than the APACHE II and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

scholarly journals Early experience of a regional trauma center in Gangwon province: First step toward organizing a regional trauma system

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-210
Author(s):  
Kwangmin Kim ◽  
Hongjin Shim ◽  
Pil Young Jung ◽  
Seongyup Kim ◽  
Hui-Jae Bang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare decided to establish a trauma medical service system to reduce preventable deaths. OO hospital in Gangwon Province was selected as a regional trauma center and was inaugurated in 2015. Objectives: This study examines the impact of this center, comparing mortality and other variables before and after inaugurating the center. Methods: Severely injured patients (injury severity score > 15) presenting to OO hospital between January 2014 and December 2016 were enrolled and categorized into two groups: before trauma center (n = 365) and after trauma center (n = 904). Patient characteristics, variables, and patient outcomes (including mortality rate) before and after the establishment of trauma centers were compared accordingly for both groups. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were also identified. Results: Probability of survival using trauma and injury severity score (%) method was significantly lower in the after trauma center group (81.3 ± 26.1) than in the before trauma center group (84.7 ± 21.0) (p = 0.014). In-hospital mortality rates were similar in both groups (before vs after trauma center group: 13.2% vs 14.2%; p = 0.638). The Z and W statistics revealed higher scores in the after trauma center group than in the before trauma center group (Z statistic, 4.69 vs 1.37; W statistic, 4.52 vs 2.10); 2.42 more patients (per 100 patients) survived after trauma center establishment. Conclusion: Although the mortality rates of trauma patients remained unchanged after the trauma center establishment, the Z and W statistics revealed improvements in the quality of care.

scholarly journals The incidence of geriatric trauma is increasing and comparison of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libing Jiang ◽  
Zhongjun Zheng ◽  
Mao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Survival Group ◽  
Scoring Tools ◽  
Death Group

Abstract Purpose: The study aimed to test the incidence of geriatric trauma is increasing and evaluate different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.Methods: Part 1: Annual reports released by the National Trauma Database (NTDB) in the United States from 2005 to 2015 and the Trauma Register DGU® in Germany from 1994 to 2012 were analyzed to test the incidence of geriatric trauma is increasing. Part 2: Secondary analysis of a single-center cohort study conducted among 311 severely injured geriatric trauma patients in a level Ⅰ trauma center in Switzerland was completed. According to the in-hospital survival status, patients were divided into the survival and non-survival group. The differences of the ISS (injury severity score), NISS (new injury severity score), TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score), APACHE Ⅱ (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ) and SPAS Ⅱ (simplified acute physiology score Ⅱ) between two groups were evaluated. Then, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were calculated.Results: Part 1: The analysis of the NTDB showed that the increase in the number of geriatric trauma ranged from 18% to 30% between 2005 and 2015. The analysis of the DGU® showed that the mean age of trauma patients rose from 39.11 in 1993 to 51.10 in 2013, and the proportion of patients aged ≥60 years rose from 16.5% to 37.5%. Part 2: The findings from the secondary analysis showed that 164 (52.73%) patients died in the hospital. The ISS, NISS, APACHE Ⅱ, and SAPS Ⅱ in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group, and the TRISS in the death group was significantly lower than those in the survival group. The AUCs of the ISS, NISS, TRISS, APACHE Ⅱ, and SAPS Ⅱ for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were 0.807, 0.850, 0.828, 0.715 and 0.725, respectively.Conclusion: The total number of geriatric trauma is increasing as the population ages. The accuracy of ISS, NISS and TRISS was higher than the APACHE Ⅱ and SAPS Ⅱ for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document