Prehospital Trauma Scoring Systems for Evaluation of Trauma Severity and Prediction of Outcomes

• Published in: Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Vol. 59; no. 5; p. 952
• Main Authors: Jokšić-Mazinjanin, Radojka, Marić, Nikolina, Đuričin, Aleksandar, Gojković, Zoran, Vasović, Velibor, Rakić, Goran, Jokšić-Zelić, Milena, Saravolac, Siniša
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 15-05-2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Analysis; Care and treatment; Emergency medical care; emergency medical services; Fatalities; Glasgow Coma Scale; Hospital Mortality; Hospital patients; Humans; indicators of severity of injury; injury; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Middle Aged; Mortality; Older people; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; trauma; trauma scoring systems; Trauma Severity Indices; Triage; Wounds and Injuries - diagnosis; emergency medical services; trauma; trauma scoring systems; injury; triage; indicators of severity of injury
• ISSN: 1648-9144; 1010-660X; 1648-9144
• DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050952

Trauma scoring systems in prehospital settings are supposed to ensure the most appropriate in-hospital treatment of the injured.
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the CRAMS scale (circulation, respiration, abdomen, motor and speech), RTS score (revised trauma score), MGAP (mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, age, arterial pressure) and GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, age, arterial pressure) scoring systems in prehospital settings in order to evaluate trauma severity and to predict the outcome.
A prospective, observational study was conducted. For every trauma patient, a questionnaire was initially filled in by a prehospital doctor and these data were subsequently collected by the hospital.
The study included 307 trauma patients with an average age of 51.7 ± 20.9. Based on the ISS (injury severity score), severe trauma was diagnosed in 50 (16.3%) patients. MGAP had the best sensitivity/specificity ratio when the obtained values indicated severe trauma. The sensitivity and specificity were 93.4 and 62.0%, respectively, for an MGAP value of 22. MGAP and GAP were strongly correlated with each other and were statistically significant in predicting the outcome of treatment (OR 2.23; 95% Cl 1.06-4.70;
= 0.035). With a rise of one in the MGAP score value, the probability of survival increases 2.2 times.
MGAP and GAP, in prehospital settings, had higher sensitivity and specificity when identifying patients with a severe trauma and predicting an unfavorable outcome than other scoring systems.