Citation

Suárez-Alvarez JR, Miquel J, Del Río FJ, Ortega P. Intensive Care Med. 1995; 21(9): 729-736.

Affiliation

Trauma Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

8847428

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Analysis of epidemiologic aspects in a trauma intensive care unit (TICU) and assessment of predicted outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective study. Samples collected over a 2-year period. SETTING: A Spanish TICU at a tertiary care centre. PATIENTS: A group of 404 trauma patients. INTERVENTIONS: TRISS methodology was applied. MAIN RESULTS: Mean age was 35.8 +/- 17 years. Mortality was 19.6% over a median ISS = 17. Blunt trauma was more frequent than penetrating trauma (90.1% versus 9.9%). Car accident was the major aetiological factor (32.4%) and the highest mortality was among struck pedestrians (26.4%). The cranial region showed the highest incidence of lesion (57.9%) and the neurological complications on stage were the commonest reported on the discharge forms (49.7%). Mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was applied in 53.2% of patients, with a relative mortality of 35.8%. Survivors differed significantly from nonsurvivors in terms of age, Glasgow Coma Scale rating, RTS, ISS, TRISS, stage and number of complications reported. The risk factors found to be associated with mortality were injury to cranial and abdominal/pelvic regions and age over 65. The TRISS total accuracy was 0.88 (sensitivity = 0.67; specificity = 0.93; area under the ROC curve = 0.85 +/- 0.03). Forward stepwise logistic regression analysis selected age, ISS and RTS as the best predictors of survival. When our TRISS results were compared with those anticipated on the basis the MTOS, an injury severity mismatch appeared (z = 0.02; M = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: We found a 19.6% mortality in the TICU. Cranial and abdominal/pelvic injury and age over 65 were the main risk factors on admittance. Clinically, we finally agreed with the majority of TRISS outcome predictions. However, we could not statistically validate the apparent clinical goodness of the TRISS methodology.

Language: en