Delta休克指数与年龄和格拉斯哥昏迷评分(dSIAG)作为多重创伤患者死亡率的预后量表的回顾性研究。

Ana Victoria Juárez San Juan, Paula Juárez San Juan, Manuel Artiles Armas, Laura Cano Contreras, Paula Beltrán Calero, Carlos Jorge Ripper, Pedro Rodriguez Suárez, Jorge L Freixinet Gilart
{"title":"Delta休克指数与年龄和格拉斯哥昏迷评分(dSIAG)作为多重创伤患者死亡率的预后量表的回顾性研究。","authors":"Ana Victoria Juárez San Juan, Paula Juárez San Juan, Manuel Artiles Armas, Laura Cano Contreras, Paula Beltrán Calero, Carlos Jorge Ripper, Pedro Rodriguez Suárez, Jorge L Freixinet Gilart","doi":"10.1016/j.cireng.2025.800111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aims to analyze differences between the prognostic scales in the initial assessment of severe trauma, SIAG ((Shock Index × Age) / Glasgow Coma Scale) upon arrival at the hospital and at the scene of the trauma (dSIAG). It has been compared with other prognostic scales, including the Shock Index (SI), RTS (Revised Trauma Score) and ISS (Injury Severity Score), given that these scales may underestimate the risk of mortality in some polytrauma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have conducted a retrospective, observational study with a cohort of patients admitted to the Critical Care Unit of a tertiary center with a diagnosis of trauma from 2018-2020. The SI, dSI, SIAG, dSIAG, RTS and ISS scales were calculated. The AUC-ROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of each one was compared for M24 (mortality in the first 24 hours) and HM (hospital mortality).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 113 patients included, 11 died (9.7%), 9 in the first 24 h (8%). All scores were related to mortality. The dSIAG had the best AUC-ROC for M24 (0.88; 95%CI 0.80-0.96) and MH (0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.96), although the results between dSIAG and SIAG were similar. The dSIAG value of 0.3 points showed a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 78% for HM and 89% and 77% for M24. The AUC-ROC of the dSIAG for HM was higher than the classic RTS and ISS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The dSIAG is similar to the SIAG and higher than the classic ISS and RTS scores as a predictor of HM in the initial assessment of polytrauma patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":93935,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia espanola","volume":" ","pages":"800111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective study on the Delta Shock Index associated with age and the Glasgow Coma Score (dSIAG) as a prognostic scale for mortality in polytrauma patients.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Victoria Juárez San Juan, Paula Juárez San Juan, Manuel Artiles Armas, Laura Cano Contreras, Paula Beltrán Calero, Carlos Jorge Ripper, Pedro Rodriguez Suárez, Jorge L Freixinet Gilart\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cireng.2025.800111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aims to analyze differences between the prognostic scales in the initial assessment of severe trauma, SIAG ((Shock Index × Age) / Glasgow Coma Scale) upon arrival at the hospital and at the scene of the trauma (dSIAG). It has been compared with other prognostic scales, including the Shock Index (SI), RTS (Revised Trauma Score) and ISS (Injury Severity Score), given that these scales may underestimate the risk of mortality in some polytrauma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have conducted a retrospective, observational study with a cohort of patients admitted to the Critical Care Unit of a tertiary center with a diagnosis of trauma from 2018-2020. The SI, dSI, SIAG, dSIAG, RTS and ISS scales were calculated. The AUC-ROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of each one was compared for M24 (mortality in the first 24 hours) and HM (hospital mortality).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 113 patients included, 11 died (9.7%), 9 in the first 24 h (8%). All scores were related to mortality. The dSIAG had the best AUC-ROC for M24 (0.88; 95%CI 0.80-0.96) and MH (0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.96), although the results between dSIAG and SIAG were similar. The dSIAG value of 0.3 points showed a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 78% for HM and 89% and 77% for M24. The AUC-ROC of the dSIAG for HM was higher than the classic RTS and ISS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The dSIAG is similar to the SIAG and higher than the classic ISS and RTS scores as a predictor of HM in the initial assessment of polytrauma patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cirugia espanola\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"800111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cirugia espanola\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2025.800111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2025.800111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在分析严重创伤初步评估量表SIAG(休克指数×年龄)/格拉斯哥昏迷量表)在到达医院时和在创伤现场(dSIAG)的差异。考虑到这些量表可能低估了一些多发创伤患者的死亡风险,将其与其他预后量表,包括休克指数(SI)、修订创伤评分(RTS)和损伤严重程度评分(ISS)进行了比较。方法:我们对2018-2020年在某三级中心重症监护病房确诊为创伤的患者进行了一项回顾性观察性研究。计算SI、dSI、SIAG、dSIAG、RTS和ISS量表。比较M24(前24小时死亡率)和HM(住院死亡率)的AUC-ROC(受试者工作特征曲线下面积)。结果:113例患者中,11例(9.7%)死亡,其中9例(8%)在发病前24 h死亡。所有得分均与死亡率相关。dSIAG为M24的AUC-ROC最佳(0.88;95%CI 0.80-0.96)和MH (0.84;95%CI 0.71-0.96),尽管dSIAG和SIAG的结果相似。dSIAG值为0.3点,HM的敏感性为77%,特异性为78%,M24的敏感性为89%,特异性为77%。HM设计的AUC-ROC高于经典RTS和ISS得分。结论:dSIAG与SIAG相似,并高于经典的ISS和RTS评分,可作为多发性创伤患者早期评估HM的预测因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrospective study on the Delta Shock Index associated with age and the Glasgow Coma Score (dSIAG) as a prognostic scale for mortality in polytrauma patients.

Introduction: This study aims to analyze differences between the prognostic scales in the initial assessment of severe trauma, SIAG ((Shock Index × Age) / Glasgow Coma Scale) upon arrival at the hospital and at the scene of the trauma (dSIAG). It has been compared with other prognostic scales, including the Shock Index (SI), RTS (Revised Trauma Score) and ISS (Injury Severity Score), given that these scales may underestimate the risk of mortality in some polytrauma patients.

Methods: We have conducted a retrospective, observational study with a cohort of patients admitted to the Critical Care Unit of a tertiary center with a diagnosis of trauma from 2018-2020. The SI, dSI, SIAG, dSIAG, RTS and ISS scales were calculated. The AUC-ROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of each one was compared for M24 (mortality in the first 24 hours) and HM (hospital mortality).

Results: Out of the 113 patients included, 11 died (9.7%), 9 in the first 24 h (8%). All scores were related to mortality. The dSIAG had the best AUC-ROC for M24 (0.88; 95%CI 0.80-0.96) and MH (0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.96), although the results between dSIAG and SIAG were similar. The dSIAG value of 0.3 points showed a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 78% for HM and 89% and 77% for M24. The AUC-ROC of the dSIAG for HM was higher than the classic RTS and ISS scores.

Conclusion: The dSIAG is similar to the SIAG and higher than the classic ISS and RTS scores as a predictor of HM in the initial assessment of polytrauma patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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