Summary

Mortality in patients with potentially severe trauma in a tertiary care hospital emergency department and evaluation of risk prediction with the GAP prognostic scale

Martín Quirós A, Borobia Pérez A, Pertejo Fernández A, Pérez Perilla P, Rivera Núñez A, Martínez Virto AM, Quintana Díaz M


Affiliation of the authors

Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Universitario La Paz, IDIPAZ, Madrid, Spain. Servicio de Farmacología Clínica, Hospital Universitario La Paz, IDIPAZ, Madrid, Spain. Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital San Ignacio, Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

DOI

Quote

Martín Quirós A, Borobia Pérez A, Pertejo Fernández A, Pérez Perilla P, Rivera Núñez A, Martínez Virto AM, et al. Mortality in patients with potentially severe trauma in a tertiary care hospital emergency department and evaluation of risk prediction with the GAP prognostic scale. Emergencias. 2015;27:371-4

Summary

and the score on the GAP scale (Glasgow Coma Scale, age, and systolic blood pressure).

Methods.

Retrospective observational study of all patients with potentially severe injuries treated in an emergency department (ED) over a period of 15 months. We recorded epidemiologic variables, cause of injury, type of transport, need for prehospital orotracheal intubation, substance abuse, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), variables for the GAP

prognostic score, destination on discharge from the ED and at the end of the episode, and mortality.

Results.

Data for 864 patients entered the final analysis. Mortality was higher in older patients (mean [SD] age, 57.9 [26.6] vs 41.1 [17.4], P<.05) and those with a higher mean CCI (3.3 [2.9] vs 0.9 [1.7]). Accident type was a precipitating factor associated with mortality (P<.001), but substance abuse was unrelated. Patients who died had lower mean Glasgow scores (9.1 [5.3] vs 14.8 [1.2], P<.001) and lower mean systolic and diastolic pressures (respectively, 113.8 [19.8] vs 131.3 [20.7] mm Hg, P=.012, and 60.1 [16.8] vs 77.7 [11.7] mm Hg, P=.002). Patients who died also had lower mean GAP scores than survivors (15.1 [4.8] vs 22.6 [1.7], P<.001). Risk factors that remained significant in the multivariate analysis were CCI (odds ratio [OR], 0.704; 95% CI, 0.52–0.96) and GAP score (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.45–2.20).

Conclusions.

Mortality in our patient series was lower than rates in previously published reports. The GAP score was a useful tool for predicting mortality in the series we studied.

 

More articles by the authors

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.