eISSN: 1896-9151
ISSN: 1734-1922
Archives of Medical Science
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
4/2018
vol. 14
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Clinical research

Additional data from clinical examination on site significantly but marginally improve predictive accuracy of the Revised Trauma Score for major complications during Helicopter Emergency Medical Service missions

Robert Gałązkowski, Michał M. Farkowski, Daniel Rabczenko, Marta Marciniak-Emmons, Tomasz Darocha, Dariusz Timler, Maciej Sterliński

Arch Med Sci 2018; 14, 4: 865–870
Online publish date: 2016/08/18
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
The Revised Trauma Score (RTS) accurately identifies trauma patients at high risk of adverse events or death. Less is known about its usefulness in the general population and non-trauma recipients of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). The RTS is a simple tool and omits a lot of other data obtained during clinical evaluation. The aim was to assess the role of the RTS to identify patients at risk of major complications (death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, intubation) in the general population of HEMS patients. Clinical factors beyond the RTS were analyzed to identify additional prognostic factors for predicting major complications.

Material and methods
A retrospective analysis of medical records of adult patients routinely collected during HEMS missions in the years 2011–2014 was performed.

Results
The analysis included 19 554 HEMS missions. Patients were 55 ±20 years old and 68% were male. The most common indication for HEMS was diseases of the circulatory system – 41%. Major complications occurred in 2072 (10.6%) cases. In the general population of HEMS patients, the RTS accurately identified individuals at risk of major complications at a cut-off value of 10.5 and area under the curve (AUC) of 93.5%. In multivariate analysis, additional clinical data derived from clinical examination (ECG; skin, pupil and breathing examination) significantly but marginally improved the accuracy of RTS assessment: AUC 95.6% (p < 0.001 for the difference).

Conclusions
The Revised Trauma Score accurately identifies individuals at risk of major complications during HEMS missions regardless of the indication. Additional clinical data significantly but marginally improved the accuracy of RTS in the general population of HEMS patients.

keywords:

Helicopter Emergency Medical Service, Revised Trauma Score, risk, major complications, general population

references:
Garber BG, Hebert PC, Wells G, Yelle JD. Validation of trauma and injury severity score in blunt trauma patients by using a Canadian trauma registry. J Trauma 1996; 40: 733-7.
Taylor CB, Stevenson M, Jan S, Middleton PM, Fitzharris M, Myburgh JA. A systematic review of the costs and benefits of helicopter emergency medical services. Injury 2010; 41: 10-20.
Skogvoll E, Bjelland E, Thorarinsson B. Helicopter emergency medical service in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a 10-year population-based study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 972-9.
Ryb GE, Dischinger P, Cooper C, Kufera JA. Does helicopter transport improve outcomes independently of emergency medical system time? J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 74: 149-54.
Ringburg AN, Spanjersberg WR, Frankema SP, Steyerberg EW, Patka P, Schipper IB. Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS): impact on on-scene times. J Trauma 2007; 63: 258-62.
Ringburg AN, Polinder S, Meulman TJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life analysis of physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1365-70.
Lyon RM, Nelson MJ. Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2013; 21: 1.
Hata N, Shinada T, Kobayashi N, et al. Severity of cardiovascular disease patients transported by air ambulance. Air Med J 2011; 30: 328-32.
Di Bartolomeo S, Sanson G, Nardi G, Michelutto V, Scian F. HEMS vs. ground-BLS care in traumatic cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care 2005; 9: 79-84.
Butler DP, Anwar I, Willett K. Is it the H or the EMS in HEMS that has an impact on trauma patient mortality? A systematic review of the evidence. Emerg Med J 2010; 27: 692-701.
Mitchell AD, Tallon JM, Sealy B. Air versus ground transport of major trauma patients to a tertiary trauma centre: a province-wide comparison using TRISS analysis. Can J Surg 2007; 50: 129-33.
Sollid SJ, Bredmose PP, Nakstad AR, Sandberg M. A prospective survey of critical care procedures performed by physicians in helicopter emergency medical service: is clinical exposure enough to stay proficient? Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2015; 23: 45.
Weiss M, Bernoulli L, Zollinger A. The NACA scale. Construct and predictive validity of the NACA scale for prehospital severity rating in trauma patients. Anaesthesist 2001; 50: 150-4.
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974; 2: 81-4.
Raatiniemi L, Mikkelsen K, Fredriksen K, Wisborg T. Do pre-hospital anaesthesiologists reliably predict mortality using the NACA severity score? A retrospective cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2013; 57: 1253-9.
Gill M, Windemuth R, Steele R, Green SM. A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale score to simplified alternative scores for the prediction of traumatic brain injury outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45: 37-42.
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME. A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma 1989; 29: 623-9.
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Carnazzo AJ, Copes W, Fouty WJ. Trauma score. Crit Care Med 1981; 9: 672-6.
Baxt WG, Berry CC, Epperson MD, Scalzitti V. The failure of prehospital trauma prediction rules to classify trauma patients accurately. Ann Emerg Med 1989; 18: 1-8.
Emerman CL, Shade B, Kubincanek J. A comparison of EMT judgment and prehospital trauma triage instruments. J Trauma 1991; 31: 1369-75.
Roorda J, van Beeck EF, Stapert JW, ten Wolde W. Evaluating performance of the Revised Trauma score as a triage instrument in the prehospital setting. Injury 1996; 27: 163-7.
Bouillon B, Lefering R, Vorweg M, Tiling T, Neugebauer E, Troidl H. Trauma score systems: Cologne Validation Study. J Trauma 1997; 42: 652-8.
Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Finch CF. Is the revised trauma score still useful? ANZ J Surg 2003; 73: 944-8.
Giannakopoulos GF, Saltzherr TP, Lubbers WD, et al. Is a maximum Revised Trauma Score a safe triage tool for Helicopter Emergency Medical Services cancellations? Eur J Emerg Med 2011; 18: 197-201.
Watts HF, Kerem Y, Kulstad EB. Evaluation of the revised trauma and injury severity scores in elderly trauma patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2012; 5: 131-4.
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 77.
Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Scheinman MM, Aliot EM, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias--executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Supraventricular Arrhythmias) developed in collaboration with NASPE-Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 1493-531.
FEATURED PRODUCTS
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe