以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (8): 34-37.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2020.08.034

• 调查研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

3种创伤严重程度评分方法对老年创伤患者院内死亡预测价值的比较研究

喻海涛1, 孙琳2, 韩小琴2, 刘云2   

  1. 1.南京大学医学院附属金陵医院,江苏 南京 210002;
    2.中国人民解放军东部战区总医院,江苏 南京 210002
  • 收稿日期:2019-11-15 出版日期:2020-04-25 发布日期:2020-07-14
  • 通讯作者: 刘云（1963-）,女,江苏南京人,硕士研究生,主任护师。
  • 作者简介:喻海涛（1992-）,男,四川遂宁人,本科学历,硕士研究生在读,护士。

Comparison of Three Trauma Severity Scoring Systems in Predicting In-hospital Death in Elderly Trauma Patients

YU Hai-tao1, SUN Lin2, HAN Xiao-qin2, LIU Yun2   

  1. 1. Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002,China;
    2. General Hospital of Eastern Theater Command, Nanjing 210002, China
  • Received:2019-11-15 Online:2020-04-25 Published:2020-07-14

PDF (PC)

423

赞

摘要： 目的 比较创伤重度程度评分、老年创伤结局评分以及损伤严重程度评分对老年创伤患者院内死亡风险的预测价值。方法 回顾性分析2011年1月—2019年9月经急诊入院的523例老年创伤患者的临床资料,收集人口学信息、各种评分系统所涉及的项目信息、是否发生院内死亡。采用创伤重度程度评分、老年创伤结局评分以及损伤严重程度评分预测院内死亡的发生情况,通过计算受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUC）,比较3种评分方法对老年创伤患者发生院内死亡的预测价值。结果 在3个评分系统中,创伤重度程度评分的AUC最高（0.914）,其约登指数、特异度也最高分别为0.716、0.859,表现比较均衡;老年创伤结局评分的敏感度最高（0.971）,但特异度却最低（0.609）。结论 创伤重度程度评分相较创伤结局评分、损伤严重程度评分在预测老年创伤患者院内死亡风险方面效能最好,评估更为全面,更适用于我国急诊早期入院的老年创伤患者的相关评估。

关键词: 老年, 创伤, 创伤评分, 预后, 死亡率

Abstract: Objective To compare the predictive value of Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and Injury Severe Score (ISS) in the risk of death in hospital of elderly trauma patients. Methods The clinical data of 523 elderly trauma patients admitted to emergency department from January 2011 to September 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic information, project information involved in various scoring systems and in-hospital death information were collected. TRISS, GTOS and ISS were used to predict the occurrence of in-hospital deaths. By calculating the area under curve（AUC）, the predictive value of the three scoring systems for the occurrence of in-hospital deaths in elderly trauma patients was compared. Results Among the three scoring systems, the AUC of TRISS was the highest (0.914),with the highest Jordon index (0.716) and specificity (0.859), relatively balanced,. GTOS has the highest sensitivity (0.971), but the lowest specificity (0.609). Conclusion TRISS is the most effective in predicting the risk of death in hospital in elderly trauma patients for it is comprehensive and suitable for the evaluation of elderly trauma patients admitted to the emergency department in our country.

Key words: elderly, trauma, trauma score, prognosis, mortality rate

中图分类号: 

  • R473.59
[1] 程飚,姜玉峰,付小兵,等.老年创伤救治与康复不容忽视[J].创伤外科杂志,2017, 19(8):561-565.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-4237.2017.08.001.
[2] Bonne S, Schuerer DJ.Trauma in the Older Adult: Epidemiology and Evolving Geriatric Trauma Principles[J]. Clin Geriatr Med, 2013, 29(1):137-150.DOI:10.1016/j.cger.2012.10.008.
[3] Kozar RA.Injury in the Aged: Geriatric Trauma Care at the Crossroads[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg,2015,78(6):197-209. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000656.
[4] Bardes JM.Old Age with a Traumatic Mechanism of Injury Should Be a Trauma Team Activation Criterion[J]. J Emerg Med,2019,57(2):151-155. DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.04.003.
[5] 邓强宇,唐碧菡,张鹭鹭,等.损伤严重程度评分应用现状[J]. 解放军医院管理杂志, 2014,21(7):623-627. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-7088.2016.24.001.
[6] 王惠琳,张瑜,牛晓丹,等.国内外老年综合评估工具研究进展[J].护理学报,2019,26(8):26-30.DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2019.08.026.
[7] Kanani AN, Hartshorn S.NICE Clinical Guideline NG39: Major Trauma: Assessment and Initial Management[J]. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed, 2017,102(1):20-23.DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2016-310869.
[8] 林曦,高劲谋,都定远,等.AIS-ISS对老年创伤患者评价效果分析[J]. 中华创伤杂志,2014,30(7):702-705. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2014.07.018.
[9] Domingues A.Performance of Trauma and Injury Severity Score(TRISS) Adjustments: An Integrative Review[J]. Rev Esc Enferm USP,2015,49(12):138-146.DOI:10.1590/S0080-623420150000700020.
[10] Wu SC.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[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health,2018, 15(10):56-62.DOI:10.3390/ijerph15102285.
[11] 中国医师协会急诊分会.创伤失血性休克诊治中国急诊专家共识[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2017,26(12):1358-1365. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2017.12.004.
[12] Baker SP.The Injury Severity Score: A Method for Describing Patients with Multiple Injuries and Evaluating Emergency Care[J].J Trauma,1974,14(3):187-196.DOI:10.1097/PEC.0b013e318156acea.
[13] Schluter PJ.Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) Coefficients 2009 Revision[J]. J Trauma, 2010, 68(4):761-770. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d3223b.
[14] Barea-Mendoza JA.Predicting Survival in Geriatric Trauma Patients: A Comparison Between the TRISS Methodology and the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score[J].Cir Esp, 2018,96(6):357-362. DOI:10.1016/j.ciresp.2018.02.014.
[15] Meagher AD, Lin A.A Comparison of Scoring Systems for Predicting Short and Long Term Survival after Trauma in Older Adults[J]. Acad Emerg Med, 2019,26(6):621-630.DOI:10.1111/acem.13727.
[16] Zhao FZ, Wolf SE.Estimating Geriatric Mortality after Injury Using Age,Injury Severity,and Performance of a Transfusion: The Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score[J]. J Palliat Med, 2015, 18(8):677-681. DOI:10.1089/jpm.2015.0027.
[17] Cook AC, Joseph B, Inaba K, et al.Multicenter External Validation of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score: A Study by the Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations after Trauma in the Elderly(PALLIATE) Consortium[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2016, 80(2):204-209. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000926.
[18] Najafi Z, Zakeri H, Mirhaghi A, et al.The Accuracy of Acuity Scoring Tools to Predict 24-h Mortality in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: A Guide to Triage Criteria[J]. Int Emerg Nurs, 2018,36(12):27-33. DOI:10.1016/j.ienj.2017.08.003.
[19] Ahl R, Phelan HA, Dogan S, et al.Predicting In-hospital and 1-Year Mortality in Geriatric Trauma Patients Using Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2017,224(3):264-269. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.011.
[20] 李雪迎. 诊断能力评价的统计学方法--准确度与约登指数[J]. 中国介入心脏病学杂志, 2011,19(4):213. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-8812.2011.04.008.
[1] 焦雪萍, 王志稳, 韩舒羽. ICU老年患者躁动行为的干预研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(3): 38-42.
[2] 杨蓓, 叶红芳, 张宁, 相卢伟, 路诗雨. 老年2型糖尿病患者体力活动现状及影响因素研究[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 7-12.
[3] 陈玉英, 王海彦, 陈思颖, 杨雪娟. 老年人自立支援照护模式的照护技巧及启示[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 31-36.
[4] 夏碧芸, 陈瑜, 吴彦妍, 胡雁. 降低经桡动脉冠状动脉介入术后老年患者桡动脉闭塞发生的循证实践[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 37-43.
[5] 刘硕怡, 熊莉娟, 李凌, 王玉梅, 何嘉, 李鑫, 袁淑蕾, 郭雪琴, 王暘婧, 张慧娟. 老年住院患者衰弱预防及管理临床实践指南的质量评价及内容分析[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 50-55.
[6] 闫亚铃, 乐美妮, 姚桃琴, 王雪莲, 姜建玲, 辛艺. 老年胃肠肿瘤患者围手术期衰弱管理方案的构建[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(2): 74-78.
[7] 谭丘羽, 邓一芯, 冀婉倩, 王冬华. 农村老年人自我刻板化与主观记忆抱怨在自我感知老化与痴呆恐惧间的链式中介效应[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(1): 56-61.
[8] 丁心舒, 孙乐菲, 高伟, 鲁琦, 闫畅, 刘德山. 矛盾年龄歧视量表在社区老年人中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 12-16.
[9] 姚晨晨, 陈娟, 杨雷. 老年衰弱患者基于埃德蒙顿衰弱量表评估分层抗阻运动的效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 73-78.
[10] 薛荣, 张开利, 陈保云, 马荣慧, 张雨欣. 中老年脑卒中患者多维衰弱发展轨迹及其影响因素研究[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 6-12.
[11] 邓悦, 胡宇帆, 王冉, 张远星, 王芳, 袁萍, 陈璐. 老年患者接受远程医疗护理体验与需求质性研究的Meta整合[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(5): 50-55.
[12] 王薇, 周演铃, 薛文萍, 张淋淋, 林书球. 老年髋部骨折患者衰弱评估工具的范围综述[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(4): 42-47.
[13] 祁水林, 林桦, 邓锐颖, 李荣杰, 李若雨, 王凤廷. 老年皮肤瘙痒症患者非药物管理的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(3): 46-50.
[14] 邓岚心, 张宇, 李敏锐, 高钰琳. 养老机构老年人认知功能与身体衰弱变化的交叉滞后分析[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(23): 8-12.
[15] 胡应兰, 王秀红, 常慧, 罗倩, 王婷. 老年终末期肾病患者参与治疗决策问题提示列表的构建[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(23): 28-33.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!