Abstract

BackgroundMultiple trauma scores have been developed and validated, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) score. However, these scores are complex to calculate or have low prognostic abilities for trauma mortality. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a trauma score that is easier to calculate and more accurate than the RTS and the MGAP score.MethodsThe study was a retrospective prognostic study. Data from patients registered in the Japan Trauma Databank (JTDB) were dichotomized into derivation and validation cohorts. Patients’ data from the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage-2 (CRASH-2) trial were assigned to another validation cohort. We obtained age and physiological variables at baseline, created ordinal variables from continuous variables, and defined integer weighting coefficients. Score performance to predict all-cause in-hospital death was assessed using the area under the curve in receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) analyses.ResultsBased on the JTDB derivation cohort (n = 99,867 with 12.5% mortality), the novel score ranged from 0 to 14 points, including 0–2 points for age, 0–6 points for the Glasgow Coma Scale, 0–4 points for systolic blood pressure, and 0–2 points for respiratory rate. The AUROC of the novel score was 0.932 for the JTDB validation cohort (n = 76,762 with 10.1% mortality) and 0.814 for the CRASH-2 cohort (n = 19,740 with 14.6% mortality), which was superior to RTS (0.907 and 0.808, respectively) and MGAP score (0.918 and 0.774, respectively) results.ConclusionsWe report an easy-to-use trauma score with better prognostication ability for in-hospital mortality compared to the RTS and MGAP score. Further studies to test clinical applicability of the novel score are warranted.

Highlights

  • Multiple trauma scores have been developed and validated, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) score

  • Characteristics of patients enrolled in the study This study selected 210,752 cases from among 225,616 trauma patients from the Japan Trauma Databank (JTDB) (JTDB derivation cohort, 107 hospitals, n = 99,867; JTDB validation cohort, 114 hospitals, n = 110,885; Fig. 1)

  • 20,197 of 20,207 patients from the CRASH-2 were assigned to the CRASH-2 validation cohort (Fig. 1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Multiple trauma scores have been developed and validated, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) score. These scores are complex to calculate or have low prognostic abilities for trauma mortality. To calculate the RTS, GCS, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate are assigned one of five categories from 0 to 4 points; this score is multiplied by the weighting coefficients of 0.9368 for GCS, 0.7326 for systolic blood pressure, and 0.2908 for respiratory rate. The MGAP score is easy to compute, its prognostic ability for trauma mortality is not superior to that of the RTS [9]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call