{"title":"Prognosis and assessment of the predictive value of severity scores in paediatric abdominal trauma: A French national cohort study.","authors":"Sidonie Hanna, Juliette Montmayeur, Estelle Vergnaud, Gilles Orliaguet","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paediatric closed abdominal trauma is common, however, its severity and influence on survival are difficult to determine. No prognostic score integrating abdominal involvement exists to date in paediatrics.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the severity and short-term and medium-term prognosis of closed abdominal trauma in children, and the performance of severity scores in predicting mortality.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective, cohort, observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Patients aged 0 to 18 years presenting at the trauma room of a French paediatric Level I Trauma Centre over the period 2015 to 2019 with an isolated closed abdominal trauma or as part of a polytrauma.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes: </strong>Primary outcome was the six months mortality. Secondary outcomes were related complications and therapeutic interventions, and performance for predicting mortality of the scores listed. Paediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Shock Index Paediatric Age-adjusted (SIPA) score, Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale score (rSIG), Base Deficit, International Normalised Ratio, and Glasgow Coma Scale (BIG), Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Trauma Score and the Injury Severity (TRISS) score.</p><p><strong>Data collection: </strong>Data collected include clinical, biological and CT scan data at admission, first 24 h management and prognosis. The PTS, RTS, SIPA, rSIG, BIG and ISS scores were calculated and mortality was predicted according to BIG score and TRISS methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1145 patients, 149 met the inclusion criteria and 12 (8.1%) died. Of the 12 deceased patients, 11 (91.7%) presented with severe head injury, 11 (91.7%) had blood products transfusion and 7 received tranexamic acid. ROC curves analysis concluded that PTS, RTS, rSIG and BIG scores accurately predict mortality in paediatric closed abdominal trauma with AUCs at least 0.92. The BIG score offered the best predictive performance for predicting mortality at a threshold of 24.8 [sensitivity 90%, specificity 92%, negative-predictive value (NPV) 99%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.93].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEVALPED is the first French study to evaluate the prognosis of paediatric closed abdominal trauma. The use of PTS, rSIG and BIG scores are relevant from the acute phase and the pathophysiological interest and accuracy of the BIG score make it a powerful tool for predicting mortality of closed abdominal trauma in children.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Paediatric closed abdominal trauma is common, however, its severity and influence on survival are difficult to determine. No prognostic score integrating abdominal involvement exists to date in paediatrics.
Objectives: To evaluate the severity and short-term and medium-term prognosis of closed abdominal trauma in children, and the performance of severity scores in predicting mortality.
Setting and participants: Patients aged 0 to 18 years presenting at the trauma room of a French paediatric Level I Trauma Centre over the period 2015 to 2019 with an isolated closed abdominal trauma or as part of a polytrauma.
Main outcomes: Primary outcome was the six months mortality. Secondary outcomes were related complications and therapeutic interventions, and performance for predicting mortality of the scores listed. Paediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Shock Index Paediatric Age-adjusted (SIPA) score, Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale score (rSIG), Base Deficit, International Normalised Ratio, and Glasgow Coma Scale (BIG), Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Trauma Score and the Injury Severity (TRISS) score.
Data collection: Data collected include clinical, biological and CT scan data at admission, first 24 h management and prognosis. The PTS, RTS, SIPA, rSIG, BIG and ISS scores were calculated and mortality was predicted according to BIG score and TRISS methodology.
Results: Of 1145 patients, 149 met the inclusion criteria and 12 (8.1%) died. Of the 12 deceased patients, 11 (91.7%) presented with severe head injury, 11 (91.7%) had blood products transfusion and 7 received tranexamic acid. ROC curves analysis concluded that PTS, RTS, rSIG and BIG scores accurately predict mortality in paediatric closed abdominal trauma with AUCs at least 0.92. The BIG score offered the best predictive performance for predicting mortality at a threshold of 24.8 [sensitivity 90%, specificity 92%, negative-predictive value (NPV) 99%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.93].
Conclusion: PEVALPED is the first French study to evaluate the prognosis of paediatric closed abdominal trauma. The use of PTS, rSIG and BIG scores are relevant from the acute phase and the pathophysiological interest and accuracy of the BIG score make it a powerful tool for predicting mortality of closed abdominal trauma in children.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).