Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 18/09/2023
Abstract Views: 499
Views pdf: 258
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v530i1.6617
Issue
Vol. 530 No. 1 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Phùng, V. C., Bùi, V. M., Đặng, V. B., Nguyễn, Q. H., Nguyễn, T. H., & Nguyễn, T. K. (2023). STUDYING THE MORTALITY PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF ISS, GAP, MGAP SCORES IN MULTIPLE TRAUMA PATIENTS. Vietnam Medical Journal, 530(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v530i1.6617

STUDYING THE MORTALITY PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF ISS, GAP, MGAP SCORES IN MULTIPLE TRAUMA PATIENTS

Việt Chiến Phùng1, Văn Mạnh Bùi1, Văn Ba Đặng1, Quang Huy Nguyễn1, Thị Hà Nguyễn1, Trung Kiên Nguyễn1
1 103 Military Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: To understand the mortality prognosis of ISS, GAP, MGAP scores in multiple trauma patients. Methods: The prospective and descriptive study for 40 multiple trauma patients from 06/2022 to 02/2023 who was from 16 years of age and older. Multiple Trauma patietns were diagnosed according to Berlin consensus statement 2014. Results:  The majority of patients in the study were in the working age group 41-59 with an average age of 38.9 ± 16.1. The ISS, GAP, and MGAP score all have the potential to predict mortality with an AUC of 0.809, 0.804, and 0.77, respectively. The cut-off thresholds for ISS, GAP and MGAP scales were 34 with 83.3% sensitivity and 58.8% specificity, 12 with 97.1% sensitivity and 66.6% specificity, 18 with 92.1% sensitivity and 66.6% specificity, respectively. Conclusion: The ISS, GAP, and MGAP scores all have mortality prediction in patients with multiple trauma. In which, the ISS are the best scale in predicting mortality (AUC = 0.809) compared to the two scales left (GAP and MGAP). The GAP scale that includes basic clinical parameters has a good predictive ability of mortality (AUC = 0.804) and It can be used effectively in the Emergency Department.

Article Details

Keywords

ISS, GAP, MGAP, multiple trauma.

References

1. Pamerneckas, A., et al., The assessment of clinical evaluation and treatment results of high-energy blunt polytrauma patients. Medicina. 2007. 43(2): p. 137.
2. Sartorius D, Le Manach Y, David JS, et al. Mechanism, glasgow coma scale, age, and arterial pressure (MGAP): a new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2010
3. Tôn Thanh Trà, Phạm Thị Ngọc Thảo, Đặc điểm dịch tễ, lâm sàng và một số kết quả cận lâm sàng của bệnh nhân sốc chấn thương vào khoa cấp cứu Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy. 2016. Luận án tiến sĩ y học, Đại học y dược thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.
4. Nguyễn Văn Tân., Nghiên cứu ứng dụng thang điểm ISS & GAP trong đánh giá mức độ nặng và tiên lượng tử vong bệnh nhân chấn thương tại Bệnh viện Quân Y 175 2017. Luận văn bác sĩ chuyên khoa 2.
5. Yadollahi M, Ghaedsharaf Z, Jamali K, et al. The Accuracy of GAP and MGAP Scoring Systems in Predicting Mortality in Trauma; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Front Emerg Med. 2019;4(3):e73.
6. Yousefzadeh-Chabok S, Hosseinpour M, Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati L et al. Comparison of Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for mortality prediction in elderly trauma patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2016 Nov;22(6):536-540.
7. Farzan N, Foroghi Ghomi SY, Mohammadi AR. A retrospective study on evaluating GAP, MGAP, RTS and ISS trauma scoring system for the prediction of mortality among multiple trauma patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Mar 28; 76:103536.
8. Rahmani Farzad, Ebrahimi Bakhtavar, Shams Vahdati, et al .Evaluation of MGAP and GAP trauma scores to predict prognosis of multiple-trauma patients. Trauma Monthly. 2017 May; 22(3).
9. Pape HC, Lefering R, Butcher N, Peitzman A, et al. The definition of polytrauma revisited: An international consensus process and proposal of the new 'Berlin definition'. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Nov;77(5):780-786.