The predictive value of field versus arrival Glasgow Coma Scale score and TRISS calculations in moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores are widely used to quantify level of consciousness in the prehospital environment. The predictive value of field versus arrival GCS is not well defined but has tremendous implications with regard to triage and therapeutic decisions as well as the use of various predictive scoring systems, such as Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). This study explores the predictive value of field GCS (fGCS) and arrival GCS (aGCS) as well as TRISS calculations using field (fTRISS) and arrival (aTRISS) data in patients with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Major trauma victims with head Abbreviated Injury Scores of 3 or greater were identified from our county trauma registry over a 16-year period. The predictive ability of fGCS with regard to aGCS was explored using univariate statistics and linear regression modeling. The difference between aGCS and fGCS was also modeled against mortality and the composite endpoint using logistic regression, adjusting for fGCS. The predictive value of preadmission GCS (pGCS), defined as either fGCS or aGCS in nonintubated patients without a documented fGCS, with regard to mortality and a composite endpoint representing the need for neurosurgical care (death, craniotomy, invasive intracranial pressure monitoring, or intensive care unit care >48 hours) was determined using receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis. Finally, fTRISS and aTRISS predicted survival values were compared with each other and to observed survival. RESULTS: A total of 12,882 patients were included. Mean values for fGCS and aGCS were similar (11.4 and 11.5, respectively, p = 0.336), and a strong correlation (r = 0.67, 95% CI 0.66-0.69, p < 0.0001) was observed between them. The difference between fGCS and aGCS was also predictive of outcome after adjusting for fGCS. Good predictive ability was observed for pGCS with regard to both mortality and neurosurgical intervention. Both fTRISS and aTRISS predicted survival values were nearly identical to observed survival. Observed and fTRISS predicted survival were nearly identical in patients undergoing prehospital intubation CONCLUSIONS: Values for fGCS are highly predictive of aGCS, and both are associated with outcome from TBI. A change in GCS from the field to arrival is highly predictive of outcome. The use of field data for TRISS calculations appears to be a valid methodological approach, even in severely injured TBI patients undergoing prehospital intubation.

The impact of aeromedical response to patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Aeromedical crews offer an advanced level of practice and rapid transport to definitive care; however, their efficacy remains unproven. Previous studies have used relatively small sample sizes or have been unable to adequately control for the effect of other potentially influential variables. Here we explore the impact of aeromedical response in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using our county trauma registry. All patients with head Abbreviated Injury Score of 3 or greater were included; interfacility transfers were excluded. The impact of aeromedical response was determined using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, mechanism, preadmission Glasgow Coma Scale score, head Abbreviated Injury Score, Injury Severity Score, and the presence of preadmission hypotension. Propensity scores were used to account for variability in selection of patients to undergo air versus ground transport. Patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury, as defined by head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale score, were compared. Finally, aeromedical patients undergoing field intubation were compared with ground patients undergoing emergency department (ED) intubation. RESULTS: A total of 10,314 patients meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria and with complete data sets were identified and included 3,017 transported by aeromedical crews. Overall mortality was 25% in the air- and ground-transported cohorts, but outcomes were significantly better for the aeromedical patients when adjusted for age, sex, mechanism of injury, hypotension, Glasgow Coma Scale score, head Abbreviated Injury Score, and Injury Severity Score (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60 to 2.25; P<.0001). Good outcomes (discharge to home, jail, psychiatric facility, rehabilitation, or leaving against medical advice) were also higher in aeromedical patients (adjusted OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58; P<.0001). The primary benefit appeared to be in more severely injured patients, as reflected by head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale score. Improved survival was also observed for air-transported patients intubated in the field versus ground-transported patients given emergency intubation in the ED (adjusted OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.78; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Here we analyze a large database of patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Aeromedical response appears to result in improved outcomes after adjustment for multiple influential factors in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. In addition, out-of-hospital intubation among air-transported patients resulted in better outcomes than ED intubation among ground-transported patients. Patients with more severe injuries appeared to derive the greatest benefit from aeromedical transport.