Article Sidebar
Views PDF: 171
CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND THE MORTALITY PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE GAP SCORE IN POLYTRAUMA PATIENTS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the mortality prognostic value of the GAP score in polytrauma patients. Methods: A descriptive, longitudinal follow-up study on 40 patients aged ≥ 16, diagnosed with polytrauma according to the Berlin criteria (2014) and treated at the Intensive Care Unit, Military Hospital 103, from 01/2020 to 3/2023. Results: The majority of polytrauma patients were male (70%), aged between 20 and 59, with the main cause of injuries being traffic accidents (77.5%). The most common injuries were chest trauma (87.5%) and traumatic brain injury (80%). The majority of polytrauma patients had injuries in three organ systems (47.5%). The median admission time to the ICU was 3.12 hours. The GAP score value at the time of admission had a prognostic value for polytrauma patient mortality at a moderate level with p < 0.05 and AUC = 0.804. The cut-off value of GAP at T0 was 12, with the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) was 0.971 and 0.667, respectively. Conclusion: Polytrauma patients were predominantly male, in the working age group, with traffic accidents being the main cause. At the time of admission, the GAP score value had a significant prognostic value for mortality in polytrauma patients.
Article Details
Keywords
Polytrauma, GAP score
References
2. S Yousefzadeh-Chabok, M Hosseinpour, L Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati, 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; 22(6):536-540.
3. D Sartorius, Y Le Manach, JS David, 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; 38(3):831-837.
4. HC Pape, R Lefering, N Butcher, et al. The definition of polytrauma revisited: An international consensus process and proposal of the new 'Berlin definition. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 77(5):780-786.
5. Lê Đăng Mạnh. Nghiên cứu biến đổi một số chỉ số đông máu và mối tương quan với yếu tố tiên lượng mức độ nặng ở bệnh nhân đa chấn thương. Luận văn bác sĩ nội trú. 2021.
6. A Sauaia, FA Moore, EE Moore, et al. Epidemiology of trauma deaths: A reassessment. J Trauma. 1995; 38(2):185-193.
7. A Wafaisade, R Lefering, B Bouillon, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of sepsis after multiple trauma: An analysis of 29,829 patients from the trauma registry of the german society for trauma surgery. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39(4):621-628.
8. Nguyễn Trường Giang. Nghiên cứu giá trị của bảng điểm RTS, ISS, NISS trong phân loại, tiên lượng và điều trị bệnh nhân đa chấn thương. Luận án Tiến sĩ Y học. 2007.
9. J Roorda, EF van Beeck, JW Stapert, et al. Evaluating performance of the Revised Trauma score as a triage instrument in the prehospital setting. Injury. 1996; 27(3):163-167.
10. Farzad Rahmani, Hanieh Ebrahimi Bakhtavar, Samad Shams Vahdati, et al. Evaluation of MGAP and GAP trauma scores to predict prognosis of multiple-trauma patients %J trauma monthly. 2017; 22(3).
11. 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.
12. Ghaedsharaf Z Yadollahi M, Jamali K, Niakan MH, Pazhuheian F, Karajizadeh M. The Accuracy of GAP and MGAP scoring systems in predicting mortality in trauma: A diagnostic accuracy study. Advanced Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020; 4.