Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Validation of the geriatric trauma outcome scores in predicting outcomes of elderly trauma patients.
Ravindranath, Syam; Ho, Kwok M; Rao, Sudhakar; Nasim, Sana; Burrell, Maxine.
Afiliação
  • Ravindranath S; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth hospital, Perth, Australia. Electronic address: dr.snr84@gmail.com.
  • Ho KM; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth hospital; Medical School, University of Western Australia; and School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
  • Rao S; State Trauma Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
  • Nasim S; State Trauma Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
  • Burrell M; State Trauma Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Injury ; 52(2): 154-159, 2021 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33082025
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Using three patient characteristics, including age, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and transfusion within 24 h of admission (yes vs. no), the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score II (GTOS II) have been developed to predict mortality and unfavourable discharge (to a nursing home or hospice facility), of those who were ≥65 years old, respectively.

OBJECTIVES:

This study aimed to validate the GTOS and GTOS II models. For the nested-cohort requiring intensive care, we compared the GTOS scores with two ICU prognostic scores - the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III and Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death (ANZROD).

METHODS:

All elderly trauma patients admitted to the State Trauma Unit between 2009 and 2019 were included. The discrimination ability and calibration of the GTOS and GTOS II scores were assessed by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (AUROC) curve and a calibration plot, respectively.

RESULTS:

Of the 57,473 trauma admissions during the study period, 15,034 (26.2%) were ≥65 years-old. The median age and ISS of the cohort were 80 (interquartile range [IQR] 72-87) and 6 (IQR 2-9), respectively; and the average observed mortality was 4.3%. The ability of the GTOS to predict mortality was good (AUROC 0.838, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.821-0.855), and better than either age (AUROC 0.603, 95%CI 0.581-0.624) or ISS (AUROC 0.799, 95%CI 0.779-0.819) alone. The GTOS II's ability to predict unfavourable discharge was satisfactory (AUROC 0.707, 95%CI 0.696-0.719) but no better than age alone. Both GTOS and GTOS II scores over-estimated risks of the adverse outcome when the predicted risks were high. The GTOS score (AUROC 0.683, 95%CI 0.591-0.775) was also inferior to the APACHE III (AUROC 0.783, 95%CI 0.699-0.867) or ANZROD (AUROC 0.788, 95%CI 0.705-0.870) in predicting mortality for those requiring intensive care.

CONCLUSIONS:

The GTOS scores had a good ability to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors in the elderly trauma patients, but GTOS II scores were no better than age alone in predicting unfavourable discharge. Both GTOS and GTOS II scores were not well-calibrated when the predicted risks of adverse outcome were high.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Alta do Paciente / Centros de Traumatologia Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Alta do Paciente / Centros de Traumatologia Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article