The Accuracy of GAP and MGAP Scoring Systems in Predicting Mortality in Trauma; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Introduction: Trauma scoring systems help physicians and nurses to be informed of injuries to a patient and assist their decision making in the cases of trauma and importantly prediction of their outcome and prognosis. Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of GAP and MGAP scoring systems as predictors of mortality in trauma patients. Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted amongst 1861 trauma patients admitted to Rajaee Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, during 2017. The data on demographic features were extracted from the patients’ records. Then, trauma scoring systems including injury severity score (ISS), GAP, MGAP, and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were compared to evaluate their accuracy in predicting mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the accuracy of different trauma scoring systems and detect the sensitivity and specificity in order to predict status of discharge after 24 hours. Results: Based on the results, the area under the ROC curve was 0.8 for GCS. Moreover, Area Under Curve (AUC) of GAP was 0.91 and amongst different values, GAP value of ≤18 was selected as the cut-off point, since it exhibited the best sensitivity and specificity (72.99 and 95.52, respectively). In addition, the area under the ROC curve was 0.9 for MGAP, and value of ≤23 was selected as the cut-off point because it showed the best sensitivity and specificity (81.04 and 87.70, respectively). Additionally, AUC of ISS was 0.88. Conclusion: Both GAP and MGAP methods were able to appropriately predict mortality and were not significantly different; hence, both can be used for the right triage of patients and to predict the severity of injuries and subsequent mortality. Moreover, GAP and ISS had the best specificity and sensitivity, respectively

The Accuracy of GAP and MGAP Scoring Systems in Predicting Mortality in Trauma; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Introduction: Trauma scoring systems help physicians and nurses to be informed of injuries to a patient and assist their decision making in the cases of trauma and importantly prediction of their outcome and prognosis. Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of GAP and MGAP scoring systems as predictors of mortality in trauma patients. Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted amongst 1861 trauma patients admitted to Rajaee Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, during 2017. The data on demographic features were extracted from the patients’ records. Then, trauma scoring systems including injury severity score (ISS), GAP, MGAP, and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were compared to evaluate their accuracy in predicting mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the accuracy of different trauma scoring systems and detect the sensitivity and specificity in order to predict status of discharge after 24 hours. Results: Based on the results, the area under the ROC curve was 0.8 for GCS. Moreover, Area Under Curve (AUC) of GAP was 0.91 and amongst different values, GAP value of ≤18 was selected as the cut-off point, since it exhibited the best sensitivity and specificity (72.99 and 95.52, respectively). In addition, the area under the ROC curve was 0.9 for MGAP, and value of ≤23 was selected as the cut-off point because it showed the best sensitivity and specificity (81.04 and 87.70, respectively). Additionally, AUC of ISS was 0.88. Conclusion: Both GAP and MGAP methods were able to appropriately predict mortality and were not significantly different; hence, both can be used for the right triage of patients and to predict the severity of injuries and subsequent mortality. Moreover, GAP and ISS had the best specificity and sensitivity, respectively

Effects of cerebrolysin on functional outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a main public health problem being associated with high mortality and morbidity. The functional outcome of TBI remains unfavorable despite several surgical and medical therapies. Cerebrolysin is a neuropeptide with potential neuroregenerative entities. Objective: The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of cerebrolysin on functional outcome in patients with moderate and severe TBI. Data sources: Online databases used included Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Study eligibility criteria: All the relevant studies with randomized clinical trial and cohort design evaluating the effects of intravenous cerebrolysin vs placebo on functional outcome of patients with TBI within the English literature up to October 2018 were included. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The articles were reviewed by two independent authors and the data were extracted to a data sheet. I-2 and Cochran's Q-statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Based on the presence of significant heterogeneity across included studies, data were pooled using random-effects model with Dersimonian-Laird method and presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and corresponding 95% CI. Results: Five articles (5,685 participants) were included in the current meta-analysis. The overall pooled findings using random-effects models among patients with TBI indicated that intravenous administration of cerebrolysin significantly increased Glasgow Outcome Scale score (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.42; P<0.001; I-2: 87.8%) and decreased modified Rankin Scale score (SMD =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.16; P=0.05; I-2: 89.6%). Limitations: The results are mainly based on cohort studies and there is a lack of clinical trials in the literature. There is also heterogeneity among the studies regarding the dosage and duration of administration and the measurement of functional outcome. Conclusion: The results of the current study revealed that intravenous administration of cerebrolysin is associated with improved functional outcome in patients with TBI measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the modified Rankin Scale scores

Tube Thoracostomy (Chest Tube) Removal in Traumatic Patients: What Do We Know? What Can We Do?

Chest tube (CT) or tube thoracostomy placement is often indicated following traumatic injuries. Premature movement of the chest tube leads to increased hospital complications and costs for patients. Placement of a chest tube is indicated in drainage of blood, bile, pus, drain air, and other fluids. Although there is a general agreement for the placement of a chest tube, there is little consensus on the subsequent management. Chest tube removal in trauma patients increases morbidity and hospital expense if not done at the right time. A review of relevant literature showed that the best answers to some questions about time and decision-making have been long sought. Issues discussed in this manuscript include chest tube removal conditions, the need for chest radiography before and after chest tuberemoval, the need to clamp the chest tube prior to removal, and drainage rate and acceptability prior to removal