SIPA Poorly Predicts Outcomes in Young Pediatric Trauma Patients

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Katherine B. Snyder , Ryan Phillips , Kenneth Stewart , Zoona Sarwar , Catherine J. Hunter , Alessandra Landmann , Roxie Albrecht , Jeremy Johnson
{"title":"SIPA Poorly Predicts Outcomes in Young Pediatric Trauma Patients","authors":"Katherine B. Snyder ,&nbsp;Ryan Phillips ,&nbsp;Kenneth Stewart ,&nbsp;Zoona Sarwar ,&nbsp;Catherine J. Hunter ,&nbsp;Alessandra Landmann ,&nbsp;Roxie Albrecht ,&nbsp;Jeremy Johnson","doi":"10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.161997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The shock index pediatric adjusted score (SIPA) predicts the need for blood transfusion (BT), hemorrhage control interventions (HCI), morbidity/mortality among older pediatric trauma patients but is less predictive in younger patients. We hypothesize that SIPA will be predictive among older pediatric patients for BT, HCI, mortality, and need for trauma intervention (NFTI), however we aim to further delineate the gap in utilizing SIPA in younger patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using the ACS NTDB for 2017–2021 we evaluated patients 1–14 years old who were transported by EMS from the scene for definitive care. Patients were divided into three age groups: 1–4, 5–9, and 10–14 years. Recursive partitioning was used to identify separate SIPA cut-points predictive of BT, HCI, NFTI, and morbidity/mortality. Cut-points from the partitions were evaluated using Area-under-curve (AUC) statistics and response probabilities were obtained from corresponding Leaf Reports.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four SIPA cut-points from the recursive partitioning were selected for each age group. SIPA was more predictive of the need for HCI. BT showed similar results consistent with previous literature. SIPA alone showed poor discrimination in relation to NFTI and mortality, and again predictive value was slightly higher in older children.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While SIPA alone showed discrimination of specific outcomes of BT and HCI, it was poorly predictive of both the NFTI and mortality in children. The youngest pediatric patients continue to be elusive. Utilizing SIPA in combination with additional scores may be necessary to triage young children appropriately. This study also indicates the need to develop NFTI criteria specific to children.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>IV.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16733,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pediatric surgery","volume":"60 1","pages":"Article 161997"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pediatric surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022346824009357","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The shock index pediatric adjusted score (SIPA) predicts the need for blood transfusion (BT), hemorrhage control interventions (HCI), morbidity/mortality among older pediatric trauma patients but is less predictive in younger patients. We hypothesize that SIPA will be predictive among older pediatric patients for BT, HCI, mortality, and need for trauma intervention (NFTI), however we aim to further delineate the gap in utilizing SIPA in younger patients.

Methods

Using the ACS NTDB for 2017–2021 we evaluated patients 1–14 years old who were transported by EMS from the scene for definitive care. Patients were divided into three age groups: 1–4, 5–9, and 10–14 years. Recursive partitioning was used to identify separate SIPA cut-points predictive of BT, HCI, NFTI, and morbidity/mortality. Cut-points from the partitions were evaluated using Area-under-curve (AUC) statistics and response probabilities were obtained from corresponding Leaf Reports.

Results

Four SIPA cut-points from the recursive partitioning were selected for each age group. SIPA was more predictive of the need for HCI. BT showed similar results consistent with previous literature. SIPA alone showed poor discrimination in relation to NFTI and mortality, and again predictive value was slightly higher in older children.

Conclusion

While SIPA alone showed discrimination of specific outcomes of BT and HCI, it was poorly predictive of both the NFTI and mortality in children. The youngest pediatric patients continue to be elusive. Utilizing SIPA in combination with additional scores may be necessary to triage young children appropriately. This study also indicates the need to develop NFTI criteria specific to children.

Level of Evidence

IV.
SIPA 难以预测小儿创伤患者的预后。
简介:儿科休克指数调整评分(SIPA)可预测老年儿科创伤患者的输血(BT)需求、出血控制干预(HCI)、发病率/死亡率,但对年轻患者的预测性较低。我们假设 SIPA 可以预测老年儿科患者的输血需求、出血控制干预、死亡率和创伤干预需求(NFTI),但我们的目标是进一步明确 SIPA 在年轻患者中的应用差距:利用 2017-2021 年 ACS NTDB,我们评估了由急救中心从现场运送到医院接受最终治疗的 1-14 岁患者。患者被分为三个年龄组:1-4 岁、5-9 岁和 10-14 岁。我们使用递归分区来确定预测 BT、HCI、NFTI 和发病率/死亡率的不同 SIPA 切点。使用曲线下面积(AUC)统计对分区的切点进行评估,并从相应的Leaf报告中获得反应概率:结果:从递归分区中为每个年龄组选择了四个 SIPA 切点。SIPA 更能预测对人机交互的需求。BT 显示的结果与之前的文献类似。单独使用 SIPA 对 NFTI 和死亡率的分辨能力较差,对年龄较大儿童的预测价值也略高:结论:虽然单独使用 SIPA 可以区分 BT 和 HCI 的特定结果,但它对儿童 NFTI 和死亡率的预测性较差。最年轻的儿童患者仍然难以捉摸。可能有必要将 SIPA 与其他评分结合使用,以便对幼儿进行适当分流。本研究还表明,有必要制定专门针对儿童的 NFTI 标准:证据等级:IV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
569
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The journal presents original contributions as well as a complete international abstracts section and other special departments to provide the most current source of information and references in pediatric surgery. The journal is based on the need to improve the surgical care of infants and children, not only through advances in physiology, pathology and surgical techniques, but also by attention to the unique emotional and physical needs of the young patient.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信