Comparison of on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale with GCS-motor for prediction of 30-day mortality and functional outcomes of patients with trauma in Asia
Journal
European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine
Journal Volume
31
Journal Issue
3
Start Page
181
End Page
187
ISSN
1473-5695
Date Issued
2024-06-01
Author(s)
Chien, Yu-Chun
Sun, Jen-Tang
Jamaluddin, Sabariah Faizah
Tanaka, Hideharu
Lin, Mau-Roung
Abstract
Background and importance: This study compared the on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the GCS-motor (GCS-M) for predictive accuracy of mortality and severe disability using a large, multicenter population of trauma patients in Asian countries.
Objective: To compare the ability of the prehospital GCS and GCS-M to predict 30-day mortality and severe disability in trauma patients.
Design: We used the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study registry to enroll all trauma patients >18 years of age who presented to hospitals via emergency medical services from 1 January 2016 to November 30, 2018.
Settings and participants: A total of 16,218 patients were included in the analysis of 30-day mortality and 11 653 patients in the analysis of functional outcomes.
Outcome measures and analysis: The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after injury, and the secondary outcome was severe disability at discharge defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥4. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were compared between GCS and GCS-M for these outcomes. Patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) were analyzed separately. The predictive discrimination ability of logistic regression models for outcomes (30-day mortality and MRS) between GCS and GCS-M is illustrated using AUROCs.
Main results: The primary outcome for 30-day mortality was 1.04% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.917 (0.887-0.946) vs. GCS-M:0.907 (0.875-0.938), P = 0.155. The secondary outcome for poor functional outcome (MRS ≥ 4) was 12.4% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.617 (0.597-0.637) vs. GCS-M: 0.613 (0.593-0.633), P = 0.616. The subgroup analyses of patients with and without TBI demonstrated consistent discrimination ability between the GCS and GCS-M. The AUROC values of the GCS vs. GCS-M models for 30-day mortality and poor functional outcome were 0.92 (0.821-1.0) vs. 0.92 (0.824-1.0) ( P = 0.64) and 0.75 (0.72-0.78) vs. 0.74 (0.717-0.758) ( P = 0.21), respectively.
Conclusion: In the prehospital setting, on-scene GCS-M was comparable to GCS in predicting 30-day mortality and poor functional outcomes among patients with trauma, whether or not there was a TBI.
Publisher
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
Type
journal article