INTRODUCTION: Trauma patients in an unresponsive state upon presentation to the Emergency Department have a poor prognosis. Rapid assessment of injuries combined with life-preserving therapy is required but defining the optimal strategy can be complicated when multiple organ systems are involved. This study analysed various categories of trauma patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3 on admission and evaluated the relation between injuries, clinical condition, treatment and outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort-study, performed at a level 1 Trauma Center from 2002 to 2005. Trauma patients of all ages with GCS of 3 (without sedation) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 16 were included. The collected patient data comprised data on demographics, mechanism of injury, physiological condition on admission, diagnosis, ISS, treatment, admission to Intensive Care Unit, complications and outcome. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included and divided into three groups based on the pathology that caused the GCS of 3: traumatic brain injury N=48 (49%), anoxic brain injury N=27 (28%) and haemorrhagic shock N=22 (23%). The overall mortality was 81%; 91% of the haemorrhagic shock patients, 81% of the ABI patients and 77% of the TBI patients died. Eighteen patients survived of whom five patients (5%) made a good recovery. The pupillary light response and pH on admission were related to mortality. No relation with ISS, age or hypothermia was found. DISCUSSION: Distinguishing salvageable patients from those beyond salvation remains problematic. This study illustrated the diversity of patients, their injuries and their condition upon presentation to the hospital as well as the limitations of therapy. CONCLUSION: Trauma patients with a GCS of 3 have a poor outcome. Despite aggressive treatment only 5% of the patients made a good recovery. Pupil reactivity and the pH on admission were found to be related to mortality.
INTRODUCTION:Traumapatients in an unresponsive state upon presentation to the Emergency Department have a poor prognosis. Rapid assessment of injuries combined with life-preserving therapy is required but defining the optimal strategy can be complicated when multiple organ systems are involved. This study analysed various categories of traumapatients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3 on admission and evaluated the relation between injuries, clinical condition, treatment and outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort-study, performed at a level 1 Trauma Center from 2002 to 2005. Traumapatients of all ages with GCS of 3 (without sedation) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 16 were included. The collected patient data comprised data on demographics, mechanism of injury, physiological condition on admission, diagnosis, ISS, treatment, admission to Intensive Care Unit, complications and outcome. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included and divided into three groups based on the pathology that caused the GCS of 3: traumatic brain injury N=48 (49%), anoxic brain injury N=27 (28%) and haemorrhagic shock N=22 (23%). The overall mortality was 81%; 91% of the haemorrhagic shockpatients, 81% of the ABI patients and 77% of the TBIpatients died. Eighteen patients survived of whom five patients (5%) made a good recovery. The pupillary light response and pH on admission were related to mortality. No relation with ISS, age or hypothermia was found. DISCUSSION: Distinguishing salvageable patients from those beyond salvation remains problematic. This study illustrated the diversity of patients, their injuries and their condition upon presentation to the hospital as well as the limitations of therapy. CONCLUSION:Traumapatients with a GCS of 3 have a poor outcome. Despite aggressive treatment only 5% of the patients made a good recovery. Pupil reactivity and the pH on admission were found to be related to mortality.
Authors: Baxter B Allen; Ya-Lin Chiu; Linda M Gerber; Jamshid Ghajar; Jeffrey P Greenfield Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Thomas A Van Essen; Victor Volovici; Maryse C Cnossen; Angelos Kolias; Iris Ceyisakar; Daan Nieboer; Lianne D Peppel; Majanka Heijenbrok-Kal; Gerard Ribbers; David Menon; Peter Hutchinson; Bart Depreitere; Godard C W de Ruiter; Hester F Lingsma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew I Maas; Wilco C Peul Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jeroen T J M van Dijck; Thomas A van Essen; Ranjit D Singh; Hester F Lingsma; Suzanne S Polinder; Erwin J O Kompanje; Erik W van Zwet; Ewout W Steyerberg; Godard C W de Ruiter; Bart Depreitere; Wilco C Peul Journal: Trials Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jason H Boulter; Margaret M Shields; Melissa R Meister; Gregory Murtha; Brian P Curry; Bradley A Dengler Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.003