40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma: modelling effects of anatomic injury, acute physiology, age, and co-morbidity

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Anatomic injury, physiological derangement, age, and injury mechanism are well-founded predictors of trauma outcome. We aimed to develop and validate the first Scandinavian survival prediction model for trauma.

          Methods

          Eligible were patients admitted to Oslo University Hospital Ullevål within 24 h after injury with Injury Severity Score ≥ 10, proximal penetrating injuries or received by a trauma team. The derivation dataset comprised 5363 patients (August 2000 to July 2006); the validation dataset comprised 2517 patients (August 2006 to July 2008). Exclusion because of missing data was < 1%. Outcome was 30-day mortality. Logistic regression analysis incorporated fractional polynomial modelling and interaction effects. Model validation included a calibration plot, Hosmer–Lemeshow test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

          Results

          The new survival prediction model included the anatomic New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS, comprising Glascow Coma Scale score, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure), age, pre-injury co-morbidity scored according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS), and an interaction term. Fractional polynomial analysis supported treating NISS and T-RTS as linear functions and age as cubic. Model discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was excellent. Area (95% confidence interval) under the ROC curve was 0.966 (0.959–0.972) in the derivation and 0.946 (0.930–0.962) in the validation dataset. Overall, low mortality and skewed survival probability distribution invalidated model calibration using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test.

          Conclusions

          The Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) is a promising alternative to existing prediction models. External validation of the model in other trauma populations is warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Applied Logistic Regression

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients.

            To assess risk factors for mortality in cardiac surgical adult patients as part of a study to develop a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). From September to November 1995, information on risk factors and mortality was collected for 19030 consecutive adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass in 128 surgical centres in eight European states. Data were collected for 68 preoperative and 29 operative risk factors proven or believed to influence hospital mortality. The relationship between risk factors and outcome was assessed by univariate and logistic regression analysis. Mean age (+/- standard deviation) was 62.5+/-10.7 (range 17-94 years) and 28% were female. Mean body mass index was 26.3+/-3.9. The incidence of common risk factors was as follows: hypertension 43.6%, diabetes 16.7%, extracardiac arteriopathy 2.9%, chronic renal failure 3.5%, chronic pulmonary disease 3.9%, previous cardiac surgery 7.3% and impaired left ventricular function 31.4%. Isolated coronary surgery accounted for 63.6% of all procedures, and 29.8% of patients had valve operations. Overall hospital mortality was 4.8%. Coronary surgery mortality was 3.4% In the absence of any identifiable risk factors, mortality was 0.4% for coronary surgery, 1% for mitral valve surgery, 1.1% for aortic valve surgery and 0% for atrial septal defect repair. The following risk factors were associated with increased mortality: age (P = 0.001), female gender (P = 0.001), serum creatinine (P = 0.001), extracardiac arteriopathy (P = 0.001), chronic airway disease (P = 0.006), severe neurological dysfunction (P = 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (P = 0.001), recent myocardial infarction (P = 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (P = 0.001), chronic congestive cardiac failure (P = 0.001), pulmonary hypertension (P = 0.001), active endocarditis (P = 0.001), unstable angina (P = 0.001), procedure urgency (P = 0.001), critical preoperative condition (P = 0.001) ventricular septal rupture (P = 0.002), noncoronary surgery (P = 0.001), thoracic aortic surgery (P = 0.001). A number of risk factors contribute to cardiac surgical mortality in Europe. This information can be used to develop a risk stratification system for the prediction of hospital mortality and the assessment of quality of care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
                Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
                aas
                Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
                BlackWell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                0001-5172
                1399-6576
                January 2014
                01 January 2014
                : 58
                : 3
                : 303-315
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Mathematics Department, Keele University Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Anaesthesiology, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Oslo University Hospital Trauma Registry, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål Oslo, Norway
                [4 ]Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Akershus University Hospital Lørenskog, Norway
                [5 ]Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo Oslo, Norway
                [6 ]Department of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation Drøbak, Norway
                Author notes
                Address:, Nils Oddvar Skaga, Department of Anaesthesiology, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, PO Box 4956 Nydalen, NO-0424 Oslo, Norway, e-mail: noskaga@ 123456online.no

                * https://www.tarn.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ca=4&c=3065 [accessed on 2 January 2013].

                http://www.facs.org/trauma/ntdb/ntdbmanual.pdf [accessed on 15 March 2007].

                http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm [accessed on 15 March 2007].

                ** https://www.tarn.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ca=4&c=3065 [accessed on 2 January 2013].

                § https://www.tarn.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ca=4&c=3065 [accessed on 2 January 2013].

                Article
                10.1111/aas.12256
                4276290
                24438461
                bb6acdb8-50e3-4a63-93b2-451434fa48c5
                © 2014 The Authors. The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 04 December 2013
                Categories
                Emergency Medicine

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                39
                2
                51
                0
                Smart Citations
                39
                2
                51
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content73

                Cited by13

                Most referenced authors609