Prehospital versus Emergency Department Glasgow Coma Scale in Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Review of the National Trauma Data Bank.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Taylor E Messick-Ngo, Bhani K Chawla-Kondal, Gabriel L Scally, Brittany R Sadoma, Nicholas W Sheets, David S Plurad, Emily D Dubina
{"title":"Prehospital versus Emergency Department Glasgow Coma Scale in Blunt Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Review of the National Trauma Data Bank.","authors":"Taylor E Messick-Ngo, Bhani K Chawla-Kondal, Gabriel L Scally, Brittany R Sadoma, Nicholas W Sheets, David S Plurad, Emily D Dubina","doi":"10.1177/00031348251359122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionPrevious studies have demonstrated variability between prehospital (PH) and Emergency Department (ED) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) for patients suffering traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Understanding the relationship between PH and ED GCS, as well as the factors that may contribute to any observed differences, is crucial for optimizing trauma triage protocols and resource allocation.MethodsThe National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was surveyed for adults aged ≥18 years following blunt TBI. PH and ED GCS scores were compared, including subgroup analysis of different TBI severities, Injury Severity Score (ISS), transport time, trauma verification level, intoxication, ICP monitor use, and mortality.Results419 145 patients were included. Overall, there was no difference in median PH and ED GCS (15 vs 15, z = 0.00, <i>P =</i> 1.00), with substantial agreement (κ<sub>w</sub> = 0.759, <i>P</i> < .001). For mild TBI, there was fair agreement between PH and ED GCS (κ<sub>w</sub> = 0.409, <i>P</i> < .001); for moderate TBI, there was moderate agreement (κ<sub>w</sub> = 0.569, <i>P</i> < .001); and for severe TBI, there was substantial agreement (κ<sub>w</sub> = 0.665, <i>P</i> < .001). Alcohol and drug intoxication, mortality, need for ICP monitor, and transport times were associated with differences in PH vs ED GCS, while ISS was not.DiscussionPH and ED providers overall score patients similarly for GCS. While some minor differences were seen for certain subgroups (mild and severe TBI, mortality, alcohol or drug intoxication, transport times), these differences are likely not clinically significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"31348251359122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251359122","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionPrevious studies have demonstrated variability between prehospital (PH) and Emergency Department (ED) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) for patients suffering traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Understanding the relationship between PH and ED GCS, as well as the factors that may contribute to any observed differences, is crucial for optimizing trauma triage protocols and resource allocation.MethodsThe National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was surveyed for adults aged ≥18 years following blunt TBI. PH and ED GCS scores were compared, including subgroup analysis of different TBI severities, Injury Severity Score (ISS), transport time, trauma verification level, intoxication, ICP monitor use, and mortality.Results419 145 patients were included. Overall, there was no difference in median PH and ED GCS (15 vs 15, z = 0.00, P = 1.00), with substantial agreement (κw = 0.759, P < .001). For mild TBI, there was fair agreement between PH and ED GCS (κw = 0.409, P < .001); for moderate TBI, there was moderate agreement (κw = 0.569, P < .001); and for severe TBI, there was substantial agreement (κw = 0.665, P < .001). Alcohol and drug intoxication, mortality, need for ICP monitor, and transport times were associated with differences in PH vs ED GCS, while ISS was not.DiscussionPH and ED providers overall score patients similarly for GCS. While some minor differences were seen for certain subgroups (mild and severe TBI, mortality, alcohol or drug intoxication, transport times), these differences are likely not clinically significant.

钝性创伤性脑损伤院前与急诊科格拉斯哥昏迷评分:对国家创伤数据库的回顾性回顾
先前的研究已经证明院前(PH)和急诊科(ED)格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)对创伤性脑损伤(tbi)患者的差异。了解PH和ED GCS之间的关系,以及可能导致任何观察到的差异的因素,对于优化创伤分诊方案和资源分配至关重要。方法对国家创伤数据库(NTDB)中年龄≥18岁的成人钝性脑损伤患者进行调查。比较PH和ED GCS评分,包括不同TBI严重程度、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、运输时间、创伤验证水平、中毒、ICP监护仪使用和死亡率的亚组分析。结果共纳入419145例患者。总体而言,中位PH值和ED GCS无显著差异(15 vs 15, z = 0.00, P = 1.00),两者具有显著一致性(κw = 0.759, P < 0.001)。轻度脑外伤患者的PH值与ED GCS值基本一致(κw = 0.409, P < 0.001);对于中度脑损伤,有中度一致性(κw = 0.569, P < 0.001);对于重度脑外伤,两组间存在显著性差异(κw = 0.665, P < 0.001)。酒精和药物中毒、死亡率、需要ICP监测和运输时间与PH与ED GCS的差异有关,而ISS与此无关。ph和ED提供者对GCS的总体评分相似。虽然在某些亚组(轻度和重度脑外伤、死亡率、酒精或药物中毒、运输时间)中发现了一些微小的差异,但这些差异可能没有临床意义。
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
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信