COMPARISON OF PREDICTIVE VALUE OF GLASGOW COMA SCALE VERSUS FULL OUTLINE OF UNRESPONSIVENESS (FOUR) SCALE ON THE OUTCOME OF HEAD INJURY PATIENTS ADMITTED TO THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Comparison of the Prognostic Accuracy of Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Score among Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in a Tertiary Care Center

Objectives  The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is widely used and considered the gold standard in assessing the consciousness of patients with traumatic brain injury. However, some significant limitations, like the considerable variations in interobserver reliability and predictive validity, were the reason for developing the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score. The current study aims to compare the prognostic accuracy of the FOUR score with the GCS score for in-hospital mortality and morbidity among patients with traumatic brain injury. Materials and Methods  A prospective cohort study was conducted, where 237 participants were selected by consecutive sampling from a tertiary care center. These patients were assessed with the help of GCS and FOUR scores within 6 hours of admission, and other clinical parameters were also noted. The level of consciousness was checked every day with the help of GCS and FOUR scores until their last hospitalization day. Glasgow Outcome Scale was used to assess their outcome on the last day of hospitalization. The GCS and FOUR scores were compared, and data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. The chi-square test, independent Student's t -test, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for inferential analysis. Results  The area under the curve (AUC) for the GCS score at the 6th hour for predicting mortality was 0.865 with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 64%. The AUC for FOUR scores at the 6th hour for predicting the mortality was 0.893, with a cutoff value of 5.5, and it yields a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 73%. Conclusion  The current study shows that, as per the AUC of GCS and FOUR scores, their sensitivity was equal, but specificity was higher in the FOUR score. So, the FOUR score has higher accuracy than the GCS score in the prediction of mortality among traumatic brain injury patients.

Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Coma Scale: Pupils Score for Predicting Outcome in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

Background

Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score is the most widely used clinical score for the initial assessment of neurologically injured patients and is also frequently used for prognostication. Other scores such as the Full Outline of UnResponsivness (FOUR) score and the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P) score have been more recently developed and are gaining popularity. This prospective cohort study was conducted to compare various scores in terms of their ability to predict outcomes at 3 months in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Materials and methods

The study was carried out between October 2020 and March 2022. Patients who presented to the hospital with TBI were assessed for inclusion. Initial coma scores were assessed in the emergency department and again after 48 hours of admission. Outcome was assessed using the extended Glasgow outcome score (GOSE) at 3 months after injury. The receiver operating curve (ROC) was plotted to correlate coma scores with the outcome, and the area under the curve (AUC) was compared.

Results

A total of 355 patients with TBI were assessed for eligibility, of which 204 patients were included in the study. The AUC values to predict poor outcomes for initial GCS, FOUR, and GCS-P scores were 0.75 each. The AUC values for 48-hour coma scores were 0.88, 0.87, and 0.88, respectively.

Conclusion

The GCS, FOUR, and GCS-P scores were found to be comparable in predicting the functional outcome at 3 months as assessed by GOSE. However, coma scores assessed at 48 hours were better predictors of poor outcomes at 3 months than coma scores recorded initially at the time of hospital admission.

How to cite this article

Chawnchhim AL, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, Sinha TP, Prabhakar H, Chaturvedi A. Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale Full Outline of UnResponsiveness and Glasgow Coma Scale: Pupils Score for Predicting Outcome in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):256-264.

Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score for prediction of in-hospital mortality in traumatic brain injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is used to assess patients' level of consciousness. Although this tool is highly popular in clinical settings, it has various limitations that reduce its applicability in certain situations. This had led researchers to look for alternative scoring systems. This study aims to compare the value of GCS and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score for prediction of mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Online databases of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until the end of July 2022 for studies that had compared GCS and FOUR score in TBI patients. Interested outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome (mortality + disability). Findings are reported as area under the curve (AUC) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio.

RESULTS

20 articles (comprised of 2083 patients) were included in this study. AUC of GCS and FOUR score for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of the two scores for prediction of in-hospital mortality after TBI was 44.51 (95% CI 23.58-84.03) for GCS and 45.16 (95% CI 24.25-84.09) for FOUR score. As for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI, AUC of GCS and FOUR score were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratios for prediction of unfavorable outcome after TBI were 66.31 (95% CI 35.05-125.45) for GCS and 45.39 (95% CI 23.09-89.23) for FOUR score.

CONCLUSION

Moderate level of evidence showed that the value of GCS and FOUR score in the prediction of in-hospital mortality and unfavorable outcome is comparable. The similar performance of these scores in assessment of TBI patients gives the medical staff the option to use either one of them according to the situation at hand.

The current significance of the FOUR score: A systematic review and critical analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Full Outline of Un-Responsiveness Score (FOURs) is a scale for clinical assessment of consciousness that was introduced to overcome disadvantages of the widely accepted Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).

OBJECTIVE

To carry out a systematic review and critical analysis of the available literature on the clinical application of FOURs and perform a comparison to GCS, in terms of reliability and predictive value.

METHODS

Initial search retrieved a total of 147 papers. After applying strict inclusion criteria and further article selection to overcome data heterogeneity, a statistical comparison of inter-rater reliability, in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome prediction between the two scales in the adult and pediatric population was done.

RESULTS

Even though FOURs is more complicated than GCS, its application remains quite simple. Its reliability, validity and predictive value have been supported by an increasing number of studies, especially in critical care. A statistically significant difference (p = .034) in predicting in-hospital mortality in adults, in favor of FOURs when compared to GCS, was found. However, whether it poses a clinically significant advantage in detecting patients' deterioration and outcome prediction, compared to other scaling systems, remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are needed to discern the FOURs' clinical usefulness, especially in patients in non-critical condition, with milder disorders of consciousness.

The Relationship of the FOUR Score to Patient Outcome: A Systematic Review

The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score assessment of consciousness replaces the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) verbal component with assessment of brainstem reflexes. A comprehensive overview studying the relationship between a patient's FOUR score and outcome is lacking. We aim to systematically review published literature reporting the relationship of FOUR score to outcome in adult patients with impaired consciousness. We systematically searched for records of relevant studies: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey. Prospective, observational studies of patients with impaired consciousness were included where consciousness was assessed using FOUR score, and where the outcome in mortality or validated functional outcome scores was reported. Consensus-based screening and quality appraisal were performed. Outcome prognostication was synthesized narratively. Forty records (37 studies) were identified, with overall low (n = 2), moderate (n = 25), or high (n = 13) risk of bias. There was significant heterogeneity in patient characteristics. FOUR score showed good to excellent prognostication of in-hospital mortality in most studies (area under curve [AUC], >0.80). It was good at predicting poor functional outcome (AUC, 0.80–0.90). There was some evidence that motor and eye components (also GCS components) had better prognostic ability than brainstem components. Overall, FOUR score relates closely to in-hospital mortality and poor functional outcome. More studies with standardized design are needed to better characterize it in different patient groups, confirm the differences between its four components, and compare it with the performance of GCS and its recently described derivative, the GCS-Pupils, which includes pupil response as a fourth component.