Predicción de la supervivencia en pacientes traumáticos ancianos: comparación entre la metodología TRISS y el Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score

Performance of trauma scoring systems in predicting mortality in geriatric trauma patients: comparison of the ISS, TRISS, and GTOS based on a systemic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of the Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) in predicting mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published from January 2008 to October 2023. Studies assessing the performance of the ISS, TRISS, or GTOS in predicting mortality in geriatric trauma patients (over 60 years old) and reporting data for the analysis of the pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) were included. Studies that were not conducted in a group of geriatric patients, did not consider mortality as the outcome variable, or had incomplete data were excluded. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Clinical Prediction Rule Checklist was utilized to assess the risk of bias in included studies. STATA 16.0. was used for the AUROC analysis and HSROC analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving 118,761 geriatric trauma patients were included. The pooled AUROC of the TRISS (AUC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77-0.87) was higher than ISS (AUC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.71-0.79) and GTOS (AUC = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.77-0.83). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) calculated from HSROC curves also suggested that the TRISS (DOR = 21.5) had a better performance in predicting mortality in geriatric trauma patients than the ISS (DOR = 6.27) and GTOS (DOR = 4.76).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that the TRISS showed better accuracy and performance in predicting mortality in geriatric trauma patients than the ISS and GTOS.

Predicting Mortality of Korean Geriatric Trauma Patients: A Comparison between Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score

PURPOSE

The Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) is a new prognostic tool used to predict mortality of geriatric trauma patients. We aimed to apply this model to Korean geriatric trauma patients and compare it with the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥65 years who were admitted to a level 1 trauma center from 2014 to 2018 were included in this study. Data on age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), packed red blood cell transfusion within 24 h, TRISS, admission disposition, mortality, and discharge disposition were collected. We analyzed the validity of GTOS and TRISS by comparing the area under the survival curve. Subgroup analysis for age, admission disposition, and ISS was performed.

RESULTS

Among 2586 participants, the median age was 75 years (interquartile range: 70-81). The median ISS was 9 (interquartile range: 4-12), with a transfusion rate (within 24 h) of 15.9% and mortality rate of 6.1%. The areas under the curve (AUCs) were 0.832 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.817-0.846] and 0.800 (95% CI, 0.784-0.815) for GTOS and TRISS, respectively. On subgroup analysis, patients with ISS ≥9 showed a higher AUC of GTOS compared to the AUC of TRISS (p<0.05). Other subgroup analyses showed equally good power of discrimination for mortality.

CONCLUSION

GTOS can be used to predict mortality of severely injured Korean geriatric patients, and also be helpful in deciding whether invasive or aggressive treatments should be administered to them.

Location of Injury and Other Factors Associated With Increased Survival Among Severely Injured Geriatric Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with a Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) < .5 are termed "unexpected survivors." There is scarce information published on this subset of geriatric patients whose survival is an anomaly.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study examining all geriatric patients (age ≥65) not expected to survive (TRISS<.5) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) database from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. We selected 10 clinically important variables for logistic regression analysis as possible factors that may improve survival.

RESULTS

1336 patients were included, 395 (29.6%) were unexpected survivors. Factors that improved survival odds are the following: Place of injury: street/highway (AOR:0.51; 95% CI: .36-.73, P < .001) and residential institution (AOR:0.46; 95% CI: .21-.98, P = .043); and presence of Benzodiazepines (AOR:0.49; 95% CI: .31-.77, P = .002) or ethanol (AOR:0.57; 95% CI: .34-.97, P = .040). Factors that decreased survival odds are the following: Hypotension (AOR: 8.59; 95% CI: 4.33-17.01, P < .001) and hypothermia (AOR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10-2.28, P = .014). Gender, race/ethnicity, blood transfusion in first 24 hours, shift of presentation to Emergency Department, place of injury (farm, industrial, recreational, or public building), use of Tetrahydrocannabinol, amphetamines or opioids, and level of trauma activation did not impact survival.

DISCUSSION

Location of injury (street/highway and residential institution) and ethanol or benzodiazepine use led to a significant increased survival in severely injured geriatric patients. Hypotension and hypothermia led to decreased survival. Future studies should determine possible reasons these factors lead to survival (and identify additional factors) to focus efforts in these areas to improve outcomes in geriatric trauma.

Validation of the geriatric trauma outcome scores in predicting outcomes of elderly trauma patients

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.

The incidence of geriatric trauma is increasing and comparison of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients

Purpose

The study aimed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma and evaluate the predictive ability of different scoring tools for in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

Methods

Annual reports released by the National Trauma Database (NTDB) in the USA from 2005 to 2015 and the Trauma Register DGU® in Germany from 1994 to 2012 were analyzed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma. Secondary analysis of a single-center cohort study conducted among 311 severely injured geriatric trauma patients in a level I trauma center in Switzerland was completed. According to the in-hospital survival status, patients were divided into the survival and non-survival group. The differences of the ISS (injury severity score), NISS (new injury severity score), TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), and SPAS II (simplified acute physiology score II) between two groups were evaluated. Then, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were calculated.

Results

The analysis of the NTDB showed that the increase in the number of geriatric trauma ranged from 18 to 30% between 2005 and 2015. The analysis of the DGU® showed that the mean age of trauma patients rose from 39.11 in 1993 to 51.10 in 2013, and the proportion of patients aged ≥ 60 years rose from 16.5 to 37.5%. The findings from the secondary analysis showed that 164 (52.73%) patients died in the hospital. The ISS, NISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group, and the TRISS in the death group was significantly lower than those in the survival group. The AUCs of the ISS, NISS, TRISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were 0.807, 0.850, 0.828, 0.715, and 0.725, respectively.

Conclusion

The total number of geriatric trauma is increasing as the population ages. The accuracy of ISS, NISS and TRISS was higher than the APACHE II and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

Dynamic vital signs may predict in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients

Vital signs (VS) are dynamic parameters and understanding the significance of changes in VS in the acute setting may offer clinical meaning. We aimed to measure dynamic changes in vital signs (ΔVS) between site of trauma and presentation to hospital and investigate the association between ΔVS and in-hospital mortality among elderly with trauma.We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 2004 and 2015 using data from the nationwide trauma registry. Patients aged ≥75 years were included. Data were collected at scene of trauma and at arrival of emergency department (ED) in Japan with blunt or penetrating trauma. ΔVS scoring was defined based on clinical implications and previous reports. One point was given for each of the following criteria: systolic blood pressure reduction (-ΔSBP) of ≥30 mm Hg, heart rate increase (ΔHR) of ≥20/minute, and respiratory rate increase (ΔRR) of ≥10/minute between site of trauma and ED. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.Of 236,698 patients in the registry, data from 28,860 eligible patients (12.2%) were analyzed [mean age (SD), 83.2 (0.3); males, 57%]. Overall in-hospital mortality rate was 10.0%. In-hospital mortality increased from 9.0% to 16.5% for -ΔSBP; 9.2% to 22.2% for ΔHR; and 9.7% to 15.9% for ΔRR. ΔVS scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 points were associated with in-hospital mortality of 8.2%, 14.9%, 30.1%, and 50.0%, respectively.A score based on the dynamic changes of VS, ΔVS score, may be helpful in predicting in-hospital mortality among elderly with trauma.

Timing and methods of frailty assessments in geriatric trauma patients: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The trauma population is aging and better prognostic measures for geriatric trauma patients are required. Frailty rather than age appears to be associated with poor outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify the optimum frailty assessment instrument and timing of assessment in patients aged over 65 years admitted to hospital after traumatic injury. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes associated with frailty in elderly trauma populations.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018090620). A MEDLINE and EMBASE literature search was conducted from inception to June 2019 combining the concepts of injury, geriatric, frailty, assessment and prognosis. Included studies were in patients 65 years or older hospitalised after injury and exposed to an instrument meeting consensus definition for frailty assessment. Study quality was assessed using criteria for review of prognostic studies combined with a GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight papers met inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight frailty or component instruments were reported, and assessments of pre-injury frailty were made up to 1-year post injury. Pre-injury frailty prevalence varied from 13% (13/100) to 94% (17/18), with in-hospital mortality rates from 2% (5/250) to 33% (6/18). Eleven studies found an association between frailty and mortality. Eleven studies reported an association between frailty and a composite outcome of mortality and adverse discharge destination. Generalisability and assessment of strength of associations was limited by single centre studies with inconsistent findings and overlapping cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between frailty and adverse outcomes including mortality in geriatric trauma patients were demonstrated despite a range of frailty instruments, administering clinicians, time of assessment and data sources. Although evidence gaps remain, incorporating frailty assessment into trauma systems is likely to identify geriatric patients at risk of adverse outcomes. Consistency in frailty instruments and long-term geriatric specific outcome measures will improve research relevance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III prognostic.

Outcomes of very elderly trauma ICU patients. Results from the Spanish trauma ICU registry

OBJECTIVE

To analyze outcomes and factors related to mortality among very elderly trauma patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) participating in the Spanish trauma ICU registry.

DESIGN

A multicenter nationwide registry. Retrospective analysis. November 2012-May 2017.

SETTING

Participating ICUs.

PATIENTS

Trauma patients aged ≥80 years.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

The outcomes and influence of limitation of life sustaining therapy (LLST) were analyzed. Comparisons were established using the Wilcoxon test, Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze variables related to mortality. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 83.4±3.3 years; 281 males (60.4%). Low-energy falls were the mechanisms of injury in 256 patients (55.1%). The mean ISS was 20.5±11.1, with a mean ICU stay of 7.45±9.9 days. The probability of survival based on the TRISS methodology was 69.8±29.7%. The ICU mortality rate was 15.5%, with an in-hospital mortality rate of 19.2%. The main cause of mortality was intracranial hypertension (42.7%). The ISS, the need for first- and second-tier measures to control intracranial pressure, and being admitted to the ICU for organ donation were independent mortality predictors. LLST was applied in 128 patients (27.9%). Patients who received LLST were older, with more severe trauma, and with more severe brain injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Very elderly trauma ICU patients presented mortality rates lower than predicted on the basis of the severity of injury.

Significance of Blood Transfusion Units in Determining the Probability of Mortality among Elderly Trauma Patients Based on the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Scoring System: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Based on Trauma Registered Data

Background: For elderly trauma patients, a prognostic tool called the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), where GTOS = (age) + (ISS × 2.5) + (22 if any packed red blood cells (pRBCs) were transfused within 24 h after admission), was developed for predicting mortality. In such calculation, a score of 22 was added in the calculation of GTOS regardless of the transfused units of blood. This study aimed to assess the effect of transfused blood units on the mortality outcomes of the elderly trauma patients who received blood transfusion (BT). Methods: Detailed data of 687 elderly trauma patients aged ≥65 years who were transfused with pRBCs within 24 h after admission into a level I trauma center between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from the Trauma Registry System database. Based on the units of pRBCs transfused, the study population was divided into two groups to compare the mortality outcomes between these groups. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality were calculated by adjusting sex, pre-existing comorbidities, and GTOS. Results: When the cut-off value of BT was set as 3 U of pRBCs, patients who received BT ≥ 3 U had higher odds of mortality than those who received BT < 3 U (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.94–4.56; p < 0.001). Patients who received more units of pRBCs still showed higher odds of mortality than their counterparts. After adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, and GTOS, comparison revealed that the patients who received BT of 3 U to 6 U had a 1.7-fold adjusted odds of mortality than their counterparts. The patients who received BT ≥ 8 U and 10 U had a 2.1-fold (AOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.09–3.96; p < 0.001) and 4.4-fold (AOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.04–9.48; p < 0.001) adjusted odds of mortality than those who received BT < 8 U and <10 U, respectively. Conclusions: This study revealed that the units of BT did matter in determining the probability of mortality. For those who received more units of blood, the mortality may be underestimated according to the GTOS.