Author
Listed:
- Shao-Chun Wu
(Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan
These authors contribute equally to this paper.)
- Cheng-Shyuan Rau
(Department of Neurosurgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan
These authors contribute equally to this paper.)
- Pao-Jen Kuo
(Department of Plastic Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan)
- Hang-Tsung Liu
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan)
- Shiun-Yuan Hsu
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan)
- Ching-Hua Hsieh
(Department of Plastic Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University and College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 83301, Taiwan)
Abstract
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.
Suggested Citation
Shao-Chun Wu & Cheng-Shyuan Rau & Pao-Jen Kuo & Hang-Tsung Liu & Shiun-Yuan Hsu & Ching-Hua Hsieh, 2018.
"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,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, October.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2285-:d:176439
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2285-:d:176439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.