To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study was aimed to assess if combining the evaluation of blood glucose level (BGL) and the Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) may result in a more accurate prediction of the actual clinical outcome, both in general adult population and in elderly patients with trauma.
This is a retrospective cohort study, conducted in the emergency department (ED) of an urban teaching hospital, with an average ED admission rate of 75,000 patients per year. Those excluded: known diagnosis of diabetes, age <18 years old, pregnancy, and mild trauma (classified as isolate trauma of upper or lower limb, in absence of exposed fractures). A combined Revised Trauma Score Glucose (RTS-G) score was obtained adding to T-RTS: two for BGL <160mg/dL (8.9mmol/L); one for BGL ≥160mg/dL and < 200mg/dL (11.1mmol/L); and zero for BGL ≥ 200mg/dL. The primary outcome was a composite of patient’s death in ED or admission to intensive care unit (ICU). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the overall performance of T-RTS and of the combined RTS-G score.
Among a total of 68,933 traumas, 9,436 patients (4,407 females) were enrolled, aged from 18 to 103 years; 4,288 were aged ≥65 years. A total of 577 (6.1%) met the primary endpoint: 38 patients died in ED (0.4%) and 539 patients were admitted to ICU. The T-RTS and BGL were independently associated to primary endpoint at multivariate analysis. The cumulative RTS-G score was significantly more accurate than T-RTS and reached the best accuracy in elderly patients. In general population, ROC area under curve (AUC) for T-RTS was 0.671 (95% CI, 0.661 - 0.680) compared to RTS-G ROC AUC 0.743 (95% CI, 0.734 - 0.752); P <.001. In patients ≥65 years, T-RTS ROC AUC was 0.671 (95% CI, 0.657 - 0.685) compared to RTS-G ROC AUC 0.780 (95% CI, 0.768 - 0.793); P <.001.
Results showed RTS-G could be used effectively at ED triage for the risk stratification for death in ED and ICU admission of trauma patients, and it could reduce under-triage of approximately 20% compared to T-RTS. Comparing ROC AUCs, the combined RTS-G score performs significantly better than T-RTS and gives best results in patients ≥65 years.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.