Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Trauma ; 71(3): 754-9, 2011 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21336194

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Little information is available concerning the ability of prehospital triage scores to predict endpoints other than mortality. METHODS: We evaluated two cohorts (a national cohort of 1,360 patients during 2002 and a single center cohort of 1,003 patients in 2003-2005) of trauma patients receiving care from a prehospital mobile intensive care unit (ICU). We tested the ability of prehospital triage scores (MGAP, Revised Trauma Score [RTS], and triage RTS [T-RTS]) to predict a severe injury, the need for a prolonged ICU period, the occurrence of massive hemorrhage, and the need for emergency procedures, and compared them with a reference score (Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score [TRISS]). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC(ROC)) curves were measured. RESULTS: The MGAP, RTS, and T-RTS scores were able to predict an Injury Severity Score >15 (AUC(ROC): 0.75, 0.75, and 0.74, respectively), the need for a stay in ICU >2 days or death (AUC(ROC) of 0.85, 0.83, and 0.83, respectively), and the massive hemorrhage (AUC(ROC): 0.70, 0.72, and 0.73, respectively). In contrast, MGAP, RTS, T-RTS, and TRISS scores were not predictors of the need of an emergency procedure (AUC(ROC): 0.53, 0.51, and 0.52, respectively). Four independent predictors of emergency procedure were noted: penetrating trauma, intravenous colloid administration >750 mL, systolic arterial blood pressure <100 mm Hg, and heart rate >100 bpm. CONCLUSION: Prehospital triage scores were predictors of Injury Severity Score >15, prolonged ICU stay, and massive hemorrhage but not of emergency procedure requirement.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Índices de Gravidade do Trauma , Triagem , Ferimentos e Lesões/complicações , Ferimentos e Lesões/diagnóstico , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Cuidados Críticos , Feminino , Hemorragia/diagnóstico , Hemorragia/etiologia , Hemorragia/terapia , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação das Necessidades , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Curva ROC , Ferimentos e Lesões/mortalidade , Adulto Jovem
2.
Crit Care Med ; 38(3): 831-7, 2010 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20068467

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Prehospital triage of trauma patients is of paramount importance because adequate trauma center referral improves survival. We developed a simple score that is easy to calculate in the prehospital phase. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational study. SETTING: Prehospital physician-staffed emergency system in university and nonuniversity hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: We evaluated 1360 trauma patients receiving care from a prehospital mobile intensive care unit in 22 centers in France during 2002. The association of prehospital variables with in-hospital death was tested using logistic regression, and a simple score (the Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure [MGAP] score) was created and compared with the triage Revised Trauma Score, Revised Trauma Score, and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score. The model was validated in 1003 patients from 2003 through 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four independent variables were identified, and each was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient to provide the MGAP score: Glasgow Coma Scale (from 3-15 points), blunt trauma (4 points), systolic arterial blood pressure (>120 mm Hg: 5 points, 60 to 120 mm Hg: 3 points), and age <60 yrs (5 points). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MGAP was not significantly different from that of the triage Revised Trauma Score or Revised Trauma Score, but when sensitivity was fixed >0.95 (undertriage of 0.05), the MGAP score was more specific and accurate than triage Revised Trauma Score and Revised Trauma Score, approaching those of Trauma Related Injury Severity Score. We defined three risk groups: low (23-29 points), intermediate (18-22 points), and high risk (<18 points). In the derivation cohort, the mortality was 2.8%, 15%, and 48%, respectively. Comparable characteristics of the MGAP score were observed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The MGAP score can accurately predict in-hospital death in trauma patients.


Assuntos
Pressão Sanguínea/fisiologia , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/métodos , Escala de Coma de Glasgow/estatística & dados numéricos , Triagem/métodos , Ferimentos e Lesões/mortalidade , Ferimentos e Lesões/fisiopatologia , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , França , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Fatores de Risco , Centros de Traumatologia , Índices de Gravidade do Trauma , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA