Cargando…

How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales

INTRODUCTION: Early accurate assessment of the clinical status of severely injured patients is crucial for guiding the surgical treatment strategy. Several scales are available to differentiate between risk categories. They vary between expert recommendations and scores developed on the basis of pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Halvachizadeh, Sascha, Baradaran, Larissa, Cinelli, Paolo, Pfeifer, Roman, Sprengel, Kai, Pape, Hans-Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6980592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31978109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228082
_version_ 1783490972304277504
author Halvachizadeh, Sascha
Baradaran, Larissa
Cinelli, Paolo
Pfeifer, Roman
Sprengel, Kai
Pape, Hans-Christoph
author_facet Halvachizadeh, Sascha
Baradaran, Larissa
Cinelli, Paolo
Pfeifer, Roman
Sprengel, Kai
Pape, Hans-Christoph
author_sort Halvachizadeh, Sascha
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Early accurate assessment of the clinical status of severely injured patients is crucial for guiding the surgical treatment strategy. Several scales are available to differentiate between risk categories. They vary between expert recommendations and scores developed on the basis of patient data (level II). We compared four established scoring systems in regard to their predictive abilities for early (e.g., hemorrhage-induced mortality) versus late (Multiple Organ Failure (MOF), sepsis, late death) in-hospital complications. METHODS: A database from a level I trauma center was used. The inclusion criteria implied an injury severity score (ISS) of ≥16 points, primary admission, and a complete data set from admission to hospital-day 21. The following four scales were tested: the clinical grading scale (CGS; covers acidosis, shock, coagulation, and soft tissue injuries), the modified clinical grading scale (mCGS; covers CGS with modifications), the polytrauma grading score (PTGS; covers shock, coagulation, and ISS), and the early appropriate care protocol (EAC; covers acid–base changes). Admission values were selected from each scale and the following endpoints were compared: mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, death from hemorrhagic shock, and multiple organ failure. STATISTICS: Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution, Pearson Chi square, odds ratios (OR) for all endpoints, 95% confidence intervals. Fitted, generalized linear models were used for prediction analysis. Krippendorff was used for comparison of CGS and mCGS. Alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 3668 severely injured patients were included (mean age, 45.8±20 years; mean ISS, 28.2±15.1 points; incidence of pneumonia, 19.0%; incidence of sepsis, 14.9%; death from hem. shock, 4.1%; death from multiple organ failure (MOF), 1.9%; mortality rate, 26.8%). Our data show distinct differences in the prediction of complications, including mortality, for these scores (OR ranging from 0.5 to 9.1). The PTGS demonstrated the highest predictive value for any late complication (OR = 2.0), sepsis (OR = 2.6, p = 0.05), or pneumonia (OR = 2.0, p = 0.2). The EAC demonstrated good prediction for hemorrhage-induced early mortality (OR = 7.1, p<0.0001), but did not predict late complications (sepsis, OR = 0.8 and p = 0.52; pneumonia, OR = 1.1 and p = 0.7) CGS and mCGS are not comparable and should not be used interchangeably (Krippendorff α = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Our data show that prediction of complications is more precise after using values that covers different physiological systems (coagulation, hemorrhage, acid–base changes, and soft tissue damage) when compared with using values of only one physiological system (e.g., acidosis). When acid–base changes alone were tested in terms of complications, they were predictive of complications within 72 hours but failed to predict late complications. These findings should be considered when performing early assessment of trauma patients or for the development of new scores.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6980592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69805922020-02-04 How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales Halvachizadeh, Sascha Baradaran, Larissa Cinelli, Paolo Pfeifer, Roman Sprengel, Kai Pape, Hans-Christoph PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Early accurate assessment of the clinical status of severely injured patients is crucial for guiding the surgical treatment strategy. Several scales are available to differentiate between risk categories. They vary between expert recommendations and scores developed on the basis of patient data (level II). We compared four established scoring systems in regard to their predictive abilities for early (e.g., hemorrhage-induced mortality) versus late (Multiple Organ Failure (MOF), sepsis, late death) in-hospital complications. METHODS: A database from a level I trauma center was used. The inclusion criteria implied an injury severity score (ISS) of ≥16 points, primary admission, and a complete data set from admission to hospital-day 21. The following four scales were tested: the clinical grading scale (CGS; covers acidosis, shock, coagulation, and soft tissue injuries), the modified clinical grading scale (mCGS; covers CGS with modifications), the polytrauma grading score (PTGS; covers shock, coagulation, and ISS), and the early appropriate care protocol (EAC; covers acid–base changes). Admission values were selected from each scale and the following endpoints were compared: mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, death from hemorrhagic shock, and multiple organ failure. STATISTICS: Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution, Pearson Chi square, odds ratios (OR) for all endpoints, 95% confidence intervals. Fitted, generalized linear models were used for prediction analysis. Krippendorff was used for comparison of CGS and mCGS. Alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 3668 severely injured patients were included (mean age, 45.8±20 years; mean ISS, 28.2±15.1 points; incidence of pneumonia, 19.0%; incidence of sepsis, 14.9%; death from hem. shock, 4.1%; death from multiple organ failure (MOF), 1.9%; mortality rate, 26.8%). Our data show distinct differences in the prediction of complications, including mortality, for these scores (OR ranging from 0.5 to 9.1). The PTGS demonstrated the highest predictive value for any late complication (OR = 2.0), sepsis (OR = 2.6, p = 0.05), or pneumonia (OR = 2.0, p = 0.2). The EAC demonstrated good prediction for hemorrhage-induced early mortality (OR = 7.1, p<0.0001), but did not predict late complications (sepsis, OR = 0.8 and p = 0.52; pneumonia, OR = 1.1 and p = 0.7) CGS and mCGS are not comparable and should not be used interchangeably (Krippendorff α = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Our data show that prediction of complications is more precise after using values that covers different physiological systems (coagulation, hemorrhage, acid–base changes, and soft tissue damage) when compared with using values of only one physiological system (e.g., acidosis). When acid–base changes alone were tested in terms of complications, they were predictive of complications within 72 hours but failed to predict late complications. These findings should be considered when performing early assessment of trauma patients or for the development of new scores. Public Library of Science 2020-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6980592/ /pubmed/31978109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228082 Text en © 2020 Halvachizadeh et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Halvachizadeh, Sascha
Baradaran, Larissa
Cinelli, Paolo
Pfeifer, Roman
Sprengel, Kai
Pape, Hans-Christoph
How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title_full How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title_fullStr How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title_full_unstemmed How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title_short How to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: A validation and database analysis of four published scales
title_sort how to detect a polytrauma patient at risk of complications: a validation and database analysis of four published scales
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6980592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31978109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228082
work_keys_str_mv AT halvachizadehsascha howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales
AT baradaranlarissa howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales
AT cinellipaolo howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales
AT pfeiferroman howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales
AT sprengelkai howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales
AT papehanschristoph howtodetectapolytraumapatientatriskofcomplicationsavalidationanddatabaseanalysisoffourpublishedscales