Author
Listed:
- Shao-Chun Wu
(Department of Anesthesiology Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan
Indicates equal contribution to the first authorship.)
- Sheng-En Chou
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan
Indicates equal contribution to the first authorship.)
- Hang-Tsung Liu
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan)
- Ting-Min Hsieh
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan)
- Wei-Ti Su
(Department of Trauma Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan)
- Peng-Chen Chien
(Department of Plastic Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan)
- Ching-Hua Hsieh
(Department of Plastic Surgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 803, Taiwan)
Abstract
Background: Prediction of mortality outcomes in trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is important for patient care and quality improvement. We aimed to measure the performance of 11 prognostic scoring systems for predicting mortality outcomes in trauma patients in the ICU. Methods: Prospectively registered data in the Trauma Registry System from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 were used to extract scores from prognostic scoring systems for 1554 trauma patients in the ICU. The following systems were used: the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS); the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II); the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II); mortality prediction models (MPM II) at admission, 24, 48, and 72 h; the Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS); the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA); the Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score (LODS); and the Three Days Recalibrated ICU Outcome Score (TRIOS). Predictive performance was determined according to the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Results: MPM II at 24 h had the highest AUC (0.9213), followed by MPM II at 48 h (AUC: 0.9105). MPM II at 24, 48, and 72 h (0.8956) had a significantly higher AUC than the TRISS (AUC: 0.8814), APACHE II (AUC: 0.8923), SAPS II (AUC: 0.9044), MPM II at admission (AUC: 0.9063), MODS (AUC: 0.8179), SOFA (AUC: 0.7073), LODS (AUC: 0.9013), and TRIOS (AUC: 0.8701). There was no significant difference in the predictive performance of MPM II at 24 and 48 h ( p = 0.37) or at 72 h ( p = 0.10). Conclusions: We compared 11 prognostic scoring systems and demonstrated that MPM II at 24 h had the best predictive performance for 1554 trauma patients in the ICU.
Suggested Citation
Shao-Chun Wu & Sheng-En Chou & Hang-Tsung Liu & Ting-Min Hsieh & Wei-Ti Su & Peng-Chen Chien & Ching-Hua Hsieh, 2020.
"Performance of Prognostic Scoring Systems in Trauma Patients in the Intensive Care Unit of a Trauma Center,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-12, October.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7226-:d:423190
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:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7226-:d:423190. 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.