Literature DB >> 28422904

A comparison of prognosis calculators for geriatric trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium study.

Tarik David Madni1, Akpofure Peter Ekeh, Scott C Brakenridge, Karen J Brasel, Bellal Joseph, Kenji Inaba, Brandon R Bruns, Jeffrey D Kerby, Joseph Cuschieri, M Jane Mohler, Paul A Nakonezny, Audra Clark, Jonathan Imran, Steven E Wolf, M Elizabeth Paulk, Ramona L Rhodes, Herb A Phelan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS' performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample.
METHODS: Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (<55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = -2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (-0.0651 × ISS) + (-1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = -0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (-0.0835 × ISS) + (-1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve.
RESULTS: Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897.
CONCLUSION: GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28422904     DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001506

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg        ISSN: 2163-0755            Impact factor:   3.313


  9 in total

1.  Predictive Value of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score in Older Patients After Trauma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Yangfan Zhuang; Quanrui Feng; Huiming Tang; Yuchang Wang; Zhanfei Li; Xiangjun Bai
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-04-23

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

Authors:  Libing Jiang; Zhongjun Zheng; Mao Zhang
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  SafeNET: Initial development and validation of a real-time tool for predicting mortality risk at the time of hospital transfer to a higher level of care.

Authors:  Stefanie C Altieri Dunn; Johanna E Bellon; Andrew Bilderback; Jeffrey D Borrebach; Jacob C Hodges; Mary Kay Wisniewski; Matthew E Harinstein; Tamra E Minnier; Joel B Nelson; Daniel E Hall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comprehensive comparison between geriatric and nongeriatric patients with trauma.

Authors:  Pei-Chen Lin; Nan-Chun Wu; Hsiu-Chen Su; Chien-Chin Hsu; Kuo-Tai Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Identification of Seniors at Risk Scoring in Geriatric Trauma: Exploring Clinical Outcome Correlations.

Authors:  Stephen D Dingley; Wayne B Bauerle; Christine Ramirez; Holly Weber; Rebecca Wilde-Onia; Ann-Marie Szoke; Adam Benton; Danielle Frutiger; Alaa-Eldin Mira; William Hoff; Stanislaw P Stawicki
Journal:  J Emerg Trauma Shock       Date:  2022-06-27

6.  Comparing the Clinical Features and Trauma Scores of Trauma Patients Aged Under 65 Years with Those of Patients Aged over 65 Years in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Study for Last Ten Years.

Authors:  Ozgur Ozmen; Mehmet Aksoy; Ilker Ince; Aysenur Dostbil; Nazim Dogan; Husnu Kursad
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2020-02

7.  Validation of the artificial intelligence-based trauma outcomes predictor (TOP) in patients 65 years and older.

Authors:  Majed El Hechi; Anthony Gebran; Hamza Tazi Bouardi; Lydia R Maurer; Mohamad El Moheb; Daisy Zhuo; Jack Dunn; Dimitris Bertsimas; George C Velmahos; Haytham M A Kaafarani
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 4.348

8.  Age and Other Risk Factors Influencing Long-Term Mortality in Patients With Traumatic Cervical Spine Fracture.

Authors:  Matthew Bank; Katie Gibbs; Cristina Sison; Nawshin Kutub; Angelos Paptheodorou; Samuel Lee; Adam Stein; Ona Bloom
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2018-05-03

9.  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.

Authors:  Shao-Chun Wu; Cheng-Shyuan Rau; Pao-Jen Kuo; Hang-Tsung Liu; Shiun-Yuan Hsu; Ching-Hua Hsieh
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.