Luke D Lawton1, Sue Roncal2, Elizabeth Leonard3, Amanda Stack2, Michael M Dinh2, Christopher M Byrne2, Jeffrey Petchell2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Sydney Medical School, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, Australia. 2. Department of Trauma Services, RPAH, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Department of Trauma Services, RPAH, University of Sydney School of Nursing, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute haemorrhage is a major contributor to trauma related morbidity and mortality. Quantifying blood loss acutely and accurately is a difficult task and no currently accepted standard exists. We introduce a simple shock grading tool incorporating vital signs, fluid response and estimated blood loss to describe shock grade during the primary survey based on the original Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) classification. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of all trauma patients admitted to our emergency room over a 1-year period to evaluate the utility of this tool for emergency physicians to detect significant haemorrhage in the trauma patient. Shock grades were prospectively assigned to patients by the trauma team as part of the primary survey, and followed up to assess for outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of clinical, radiological and operative findings consistent with significant haemorrhage. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression to assess predictive ability and receiver operator characteristic curve to assess overall diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the shock grading tool was 83%. The diagnostic accuracy based on area under receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.86. There was also a significant association between increasing shock grade and both injury severity score (β coefficient 7.0, p<0.001, 95% CI 6.2 to 7.8) and the presence of significant haemorrhage (OR 5.1, p<0.001, 95% CI 3.6 to 7.3). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a simple ATLS based clinical tool that objectively categorises haemorrhagic shock is a useful part of the primary survey of the trauma patient, although a larger study with higher statistical power is required to evaluate this conclusion further. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Acute haemorrhage is a major contributor to trauma related morbidity and mortality. Quantifying blood loss acutely and accurately is a difficult task and no currently accepted standard exists. We introduce a simple shock grading tool incorporating vital signs, fluid response and estimated blood loss to describe shock grade during the primary survey based on the original Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) classification. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of all traumapatients admitted to our emergency room over a 1-year period to evaluate the utility of this tool for emergency physicians to detect significant haemorrhage in the traumapatient. Shock grades were prospectively assigned to patients by the trauma team as part of the primary survey, and followed up to assess for outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of clinical, radiological and operative findings consistent with significant haemorrhage. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression to assess predictive ability and receiver operator characteristic curve to assess overall diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the shock grading tool was 83%. The diagnostic accuracy based on area under receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.86. There was also a significant association between increasing shock grade and both injury severity score (β coefficient 7.0, p<0.001, 95% CI 6.2 to 7.8) and the presence of significant haemorrhage (OR 5.1, p<0.001, 95% CI 3.6 to 7.3). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a simple ATLS based clinical tool that objectively categorises haemorrhagic shock is a useful part of the primary survey of the traumapatient, although a larger study with higher statistical power is required to evaluate this conclusion further. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Thomas Standl; Thorsten Annecke; Ingolf Cascorbi; Axel R Heller; Anton Sabashnikov; Wolfram Teske Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Rolf Rossaint; Bertil Bouillon; Vladimir Cerny; Timothy J Coats; Jacques Duranteau; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Daniela Filipescu; Beverley J Hunt; Radko Komadina; Giuseppe Nardi; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Yves Ozier; Louis Riddez; Arthur Schultz; Jean-Louis Vincent; Donat R Spahn Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Chris Yuk Kwan Tang; Vijay H D Kamath; Prudence Wing Hang Cheung; Jason Pui Yin Cheung Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Hao Wang; Richard D Robinson; Jessica Laureano Phillips; Alexander J Kirk; Therese M Duane; Johnbosco Umejiego; Melanie Stanzer; Mackenzie B Campbell-Furtick; Nestor R Zenarosa Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2015-10-23