Citation

Liu NT, Holcomb JB, Wade CE, Salinas J. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017; 83(1 Suppl 1): S98-S103.

Affiliation

1 U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX 2 Center for Translational Injury Research, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/TA.0000000000001482

PMID

28452878

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of traditional vital signs for predicting mortality and the need for prehospital life-saving interventions (LSIs) in blunt trauma patients requiring helicopter transport to a Level I trauma center. Our hypothesis was that standard vital signs are not sufficient for identifying or determining treatment for those patients most at risk.

METHODS: This study involved prehospital trauma patients suffering from blunt trauma (motor vehicle/cycle collision) and transported from the point of injury via helicopter. Means and standard deviations for vital signs and Glasgow coma scale scores (GCS) were obtained for non-LSI versus LSI and survivor versus non-survivor patient groups and then compared using Wilcoxon statistical tests. Variables with statistically significant differences between patient groups were then used to develop multivariate logistic regression models for predicting mortality and/or the need for prehospital LSIs. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were also obtained in order to compare these models.

RESULTS: A final cohort of 195 patients was included in the analysis. 30 (15%) patients received a total of 39 prehospital LSIs. Of these, 12 (40%) died. In total, 33 (17%) patients died. Of these, 21 (74%) did not receive prehospital LSIs. Model variables were field heart rate, lowest systolic blood pressure, shock index, pulse pressure, and GCS components. Using vital signs alone, ROC curves demonstrated poor prediction of LSI needs, mortality, and non-survivors who did not receive LSIs (area under the curve [AUC], AUCs: 0.72, 0.65, and 0.61). When using both vital signs and GCS, ROC curves still demonstrated poor prediction of non-survivors overall and non-survivors who did not receive LSIs (AUCs: 0.67, 0.74).

CONCLUSION: The major implication of this study was that traditional vital signs cannot identify or determine treatment for many prehospital blunt trauma patients who are at great risk. This study reiterated the need for new measures in order to improve blunt trauma triage and prehospital care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Therapeutic/Care Management. FUNDING: U.S. Army Combat Casualty Care Research Program.

Language: en