Abstract
Background and objectives
Worldwide, trauma is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The aim of the present study is to identify the predictors of mortality of trauma patients requiring Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted in the ICU of our institution in Greece during a six-year period (2010–215).
Results
Among 326 patients, trauma was caused by road traffic accidents in .5%, followed by falls (21.1%) and violence (7.4%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that higher New Injury Severity Score (NISS), severe head/neck injury, acute kidney injury, septic shock and hemorrhagic shock were significantly associated with mortality while higher Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II (RISC II) and the administration of enteral nutrition were associated with survival. NISS showed the higher accuracy in predicting 30-day mortality followed by RISC II, while scores based only in physiological variables had lower predictive ability.
Conclusions
Increased mortality was strongly associated with the severity of the injury upon admission. Traumatic brain injury, septic shock and acute kidney injury have also been found among the strongest predictors of mortality. NISS can be considered as a statistically superior score in predicting mortality of severely injured patients.
Keywords: Road traffic accident; Traumatic brain injury; Sepsis; New Injury Severity Score (NISS); Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II (RISC II)
Introduction
Trauma continues to present challenges to healthcare systems around the world and remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Europe, with road traffic accidents accounting for the majority of fatal injuries.1 More than 120,000 people die annually in Europe due to road traffic injuries. Greek mortality rate from road traffic injuries is 14.9 per 100,000 people, while European and the worldwide ones are 13.4 and 18.8, respectively.2
Mortality after trauma usually shows a trimodal pattern, consisting of immediate deaths (within the first hour), early deaths (during the first 24 hours) and late deaths (after the first day).3 Severe traumatic injuries are life-threatening and require admission in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).2, 4 In-hospital mortality of trauma patients admitted to the ICU is associated with severe brain injury and multiorgan failure.1, 3, 5 Many severity scores have been proposed to predict mortality comprising of anatomical variables or physiological ones or combining both.4, 6, 7, 8
The aims of this study are to identify the predictors of mortality of the trauma patients requiring ICU admission and assess the ability of different injury severity scores to predict the mortality of critically ill injured patients.
Methods
This single center retrospective study was conducted in the general ICU (capacity of 13 beds) of our institution, Greece, during a six-year period (2010–215). Our institution serves as the only teaching hospital in the south-west Greece, covering a total population of one-million people with a capacity of 700 beds. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our institution (nº 571).
All patients older than 18 years of age with traumatic injuries admitted at ICU were included in the study. Pre-hospital care was provided by crews consisted of paramedics with or without medical doctors. All study patients were treated according to ICU protocols. Epidemiologic data were collected from the ICU computerized database (CriticusTM, University of Patras, Greece) and the patients’ chart reviews. The parameters assessed included demographic characteristics (age, sex), severity scores of illness on admission [Injury Severity Score (ISS), New ISS (NISS), Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Revised Injury Severity Classification, versão II (RISC II) (Table 1), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score],8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 mechanism of trauma, GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), PaO2/FiO2, area of trauma, Length Of Stay (LOS) and complications (hemorrhagic shock, infection, acute kidney injury). Severe trauma injury for each area of trauma was considered as those with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 4 points. Infection was categorized as sepsis or septic shock according to new sepsis definition.14 Acute kidney injury was defined according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Guidelines (KDIGO) recommendations.15
Table 1.
Description of different trauma specific severity score.
| Score | Type | Parameters assessed | Variables included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury Severity Score (ISS) | Anatomical | Three worst injured body regions according to AIS | 3 |
| New ISS (NISS) | Anatomical | Three worst injuries according to AIS (even from same body region) | 3 |
| Revised Trauma Score (RTS) | Physiological | GCS, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate | 3 |
| Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) | Combined | Based in ISS and RTS | 6 |
| Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II (RISC II) | Combined | Mechanism, two worst AIS, TBI demographic, pupil reactivity/size, motor function, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, systolic blood pressure, laboratory values (INR, CRP, hemoglobin, base deficit) | 15 |
AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale.
SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) software was used for data analysis. Categorical variables were analyzed by using the Fisher exact test and continuous variables with Mann–Whitney U test. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used. Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of any association. All statistic tests were 2-tailed and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The ability of the scoring systems to predict ICU mortality of trauma patients was investigated using Receiver Ooperating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results
Among 2094 patients admitted to the ICU during the study period, 326 (15.6%) were admitted following severe trauma (Fig. 1). Most of the trauma cases were due to road traffic accidents (233 patients; 71.5%) followed by falls (69; 21.1%) and violence (24; 7.4%). Blunt trauma was the leading mechanism of traumatism (308 patients: 94.2%).
Figure 1.
Flowchart of patients.
Thirty-day mortality was 27.3% (n = 89 patients). Univariate analysis for predictors of mortality is depicted in Table 2. Multivariate analysis found that higher NISS (p < 0.001; OR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1–1.2), severe head/neck injury (AIS ≥ 4) (p = 0.041; OR = 3.3; 95% CI 1.1–10.2), acute kidney injury (p < 0.001; OR = 7.7; 95% CI 2.6–22.6), septic shock (p = 0.001; OR = 6.2; 95% CI 2.1–18.1) and hemorrhagic shock (p = 0.018; OR = 3.7; 95% CI 1.4–10.8) were significantly associated with mortality while higher RISC II (p = 0.004; OR = 0.703; 95% CI 0.554–0.892) and administration of enteral nutrition were associated with survival (p < 0.001; OR = 0.121; 95% CI 0.040–0.365).
Table 2.
Univariate analysis for predictors of 30-day mortality of all trauma patients admitted at Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
| Characteristics | Survivors (237) | Non-survivors (89) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Age (years) | 43.3 ± 20.2 | 48.3 ± 23.7 | 0.143 |
| Age ≥ 65 years | 46 (19.4%) | 32 (36.0%) | 0.003a |
| Male gender | 196 (82.7%) | 74 (83.1%) | 1.000 |
| Comorbidities | |||
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1 (0.4%) | 3 (3.4%) | 0.064 |
| Arterial hypertension | 31 (13.1%) | 23 (25.8%) | 0.008 |
| Coronary disease | 13 (5.5%) | 11 (12.4%) | 0.054 |
| Chronic heart failure | 1 (0.4%) | 3 (3.4%) | 0.064 |
| Obesity | 28 (11.8%) | 13 (14.6%) | 0.574 |
| Chronic renal insufficiency | 4 (1.7%) | 6 (6.7%) | 0.028 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 11 (4.6%) | 6 (6.7%) | 0.417 |
| Mechanism of trauma | |||
| Road traffic accident | 176 (74.3%) | 57 (64.0%) | 0.075 |
| Fall | 44 (18.6%) | 25 (28.1%) | 0.069 |
| Violence | 17 (7.2%) | 7 (7.9%) | 1.000 |
| Penetrating trauma | 12 (5.1%) | 7 (7.9%) | 0.425 |
| Admission data | |||
| First aid offered in hospital other than our institution | 155 (65.4%) | 56 (62.9%) | 0.698 |
| PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) | 278.8 ± 116.7 | 249.1 ± 127.5 | 0.032 |
| PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg | 71 (30.0%) | 39 (43.8%) | 0.025a |
| Hemoglobin (g.dL-1) | 11.1 ± 2.2 | 10.3 ± 2.7 | 0.017 |
| Hemoglobin ≤ 8 g.dL-1 | 9 (3.8%) | 19 (21.3%) | < 0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption | 28 (11.8%) | 6 (6.7%) | 0.225 |
| Operation before admission | 111 (46.8%) | 42 (47.2%) | 1.000 |
| Injury severity scores (upon admission) | |||
| GCS | 9.7 ± 4.2 | 6.9 ± 4.0 | < 0.001 |
| GCS < 9 | 81 (34.2%) | 60 (67.4%) | < 0.001 |
| ISS | 24.9 ± 8.8 | 39.9 ± 14.2 | < 0.001 |
| NISS | 30.3 ± 10.1 | 50.9 ± 12.2 | < 0.001a |
| RTS | 6.3 ± 1.2 | 5.0 ± 1.4 | < 0.001 |
| TRISS | 82.4 ± 18.7 | 44.8 ± 30.1 | < 0.001 |
| RISC II | −1.3 ± 1.6 | −4.1 ± 2.0 | < 0.001a |
| APACHE II | 13.8 ± 6.3 | 18.2 ± 5.9 | < 0.001 |
| SAPS II | 31.8 ± 11.5 | 44.3 ± 47.8 | < 0.001 |
| SOFA | 6.9 ± 3.0 | 8.9 ± 2.8 | < 0.001 |
| Area of trauma | |||
| Head/Neck | 165 (69.6%) | 75 (84.3%) | 0.007 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 40 (28.4%) | 37 (60.7%) | < 0.001a |
| Midline shift | 29 (12.2%) | 33 (37.1%) | < 0.001 |
| Face | 70 (29.5%) | 27 (30.3%) | 0.893 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 12 (5.1%) | 6 (6.7%) | 0.589 |
| Chest | 127 (53.6%) | 41 (46.1%) | 0.263 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 43 (18.1%) | 17 (19.1%) | 0.873 |
| Abdominal | 71 (30.0%) | 25 (28.1%) | 0.786 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 26 (11.0%) | 13 (14.6%) | 0.443 |
| Extremity | 46 (19.4%) | 15 (16.9%) | 0.637 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 3 (1.3%) | 4 (4.5%) | 0.091 |
| External | 18 (7.6%) | 10 (11.2%) | 0.374 |
| Hospitalization data | |||
| ICU length of stay (days) | 13.8 ± 13.1 | 7.5 ± 10.0 | < 0.001 |
| Hemorrhagic shock | 29 (12.2%) | 34 (38.2%) | < 0.001a |
| Number of transfusions | 2.1 ± 3.3 | 3.6 ± 5.8 | 0.187 |
| Acute kidney injury | 27 (11.4%) | 49 (55.1%) | < 0.001a |
| Hemodialysis | 6 (2.5%) | 3 (3.4%) | 0.709 |
| Infection | 98 (41.4%) | 52 (58.4%) | 0.006 |
| Sepsis (excluding septic shock) | 80 (33.8%) | 22 (24.7%) | 0.140 |
| Septic shock | 42 (17.7%) | 47 (52.8%) | < 0.001a |
| Enteral nutrition | 139 (58.6%) | 28 (31.5%) | < 0.001a |
| Parenteral nutrition | 80 (33.8%) | 22 (24.7%) | 0.140 |
| Urgent operation during ICU stay | 16 (6.8%) | 19 (21.3%) | < 0.001 |
Data are number (%) of patients or Mean ± SD.
Our Institution: ISS, Injury Severity Score; NISS, New ISS; RTS, Revised Trauma Score; TRISS, Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score; RISC II, Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II; APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; SAPS II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale.
Variables included in the multivariate analysis.
Since the majority of patients included in the present study were injured during road traffic injuries, a second analysis comprised by such patients (n = 233) was conducted. Thirty-day mortality of such patients was 24.4% (n = 57). Univariate analysis of predictors of mortality is shown on Table 3. Mortality was independently associated with higher NISS (p < 0.001; OR = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1–1.3), acute kidney injury (p = 0.012; OR = 5.0; 95% CI 1.4–17.4) and septic shock (p = 0.008; OR = 5.5; 95% CI 1.6–19.1), while higher RISC II (p = 0.038; OR = 0.760; 95% CI 0.586–0.985) and administration of enteral nutrition (p = 0.001; OR = 0.124; 95% CI 0.036-0.426) were associated with survival.
Table 3.
Univariate analysis for predictors of 30-day mortality of trauma patients after road traffic accidents admitted at Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
| Characteristics | Survivors (176) | Non-survivors (57) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Age (years) | 39.7 ± 19.6 | 44.2 ± 22.8 | 0.332 |
| Age ≥ 65 years | 29 (16.5%) | 16 (28.1%) | 0.081 |
| Male gender | 150 (85.2%) | 47 (82.5%) | 0.674 |
| Comorbidities | |||
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.000 |
| Arterial hypertension | 17 (9.7%) | 11 (19.3%) | 0.062 |
| Coronary disease | 8 (4.5%) | 4 (7.0%) | 0.494 |
| Chronic heart failure | 1 (0.6%) | 2 (3.5%) | 0.149 |
| Obesity | 20 (11.4%) | 9 (15.8%) | 0.365 |
| Chronic renal insufficiency | 3 (1.7%) | 3 (5.3%) | 0.158 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 5 (2.8%) | 3 (5.3%) | 0.417 |
| Mechanism of trauma | |||
| --Pedestrian | 23 (13.1%) | 12 (21.1%) | 0.199 |
| Two-wheel vehicle (driver or passenger) | 101 (57.4%) | 31 (54.4%) | 0.759 |
| Use of helmet | 25 (24.8%) | 6 (18.8%) | |
| Four-wheel vehicle (driver or passenger) | 52 (29.5%) | 14 (24.6%) | 0.504 |
| Use of seat-belt | 24 (46.2%) | 5 (35.7%) | |
| Admission data | |||
| First aid offered in hospital other than our institution | 115 (65.3%) | 34 (59.6%) | 0.433 |
| PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) | 187.5 ± 120.5 | 255.1 ± 125.0 | 0.063 |
| PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg | 51 (29.0%) | 25 (43.9%) | 0.050 |
| Hemoglobin (g.dL-1) | 11.2 ± 2.1 | 10.4 ± 2.9 | 0.090 |
| Hemoglobin ≤ 8 g.dL-1 | 6 (3.4%) | 13 (22.8%) | < 0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption | 23 (13.1%) | 2 (3.5%) | 0.048 |
| Operation before admission | 78 (44.3%) | 27 (47.4%) | 1.000 |
| Injury severity scores (upon admission) | |||
| GCS | 9.5 ± 4.1 | 6.6 ± 3.7 | < 0.001 |
| GCS < 9 | 63 (35.8%) | 41 (71.9%) | < 0.001a |
| ISS | 25.5 ± 8.9 | 40.6 ± 12.9 | < 0.001 |
| NISS | 30.3 ± 9.8 | 50.6 ± 11.0 | < 0.001a |
| RTS | 6.3 ± 1.2 | 5.0 ± 1.4 | < 0.001 |
| TRISS | 83.4 ± 17.8 | 46.4 ± 29.8 | < 0.001 |
| RISC II | −1.2 ± 1.6 | −3.7 ± 2.1 | < 0.001a |
| APACHE II | 13.4 ± 5.9 | 18.1 ± 5.9 | < 0.001 |
| SAPS II | 31.1 ± 11.5 | 46.3 ± 58.3 | < 0.001 |
| SOFA | 6.8 ± 3.0 | 8.7 ± 2.7 | < 0.001 |
| Area of trauma | |||
| Head/Neck | 129 (73.3%) | 52 (91.2%) | 0.005 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 91 (51.7%) | 48 (84.2%) | < 0.001 |
| Midline shift | 16 (9.1%) | 19 (33.3%) | < 0.001 |
| Face | 57 (32.4%) | 18 (31.6%) | 1.000 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 7 (4.0%) | 3 (5.3%) | 0.710 |
| Chest | 99 (56.3%) | 31 (54.4%) | 0.878 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 30 (17.0%) | 9 (15.8%) | 1.000 |
| Abdominal | 53 (30.1%) | 18 (31.6%) | 0.869 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 17 (9.7%) | 9 (15.8%) | 0.227 |
| Extremity | 42 (23.9%) | 13 (22.8%) | 1.000 |
| Severe (AIS ≥ 4) | 2 (1.1%) | 3 (5.3%) | 0.096 |
| External | 14 (8.0%) | 8 (14.0%) | 0.194 |
| Hospitalization data | |||
| ICU length of stay (days) | 13.8 ± 13.1 | 7.5 ± 10.0 | < 0.001 |
| Hemorrhagic shock | 18 (10.2%) | 22 (38.6%) | < 0.001 |
| Number of transfusions | 2.1 ± 3.3 | 3.0 ± 4.3 | 0.289 |
| Acute kidney injury | 21 (11.9%) | 29 (50.9%) | < 0.001a |
| Hemodialysis | 5 (2.8%) | 1 (1.8%) | 1.000 |
| Infection | 70 (39.8%) | 33 (57.9%) | 0.021 |
| Sepsis (excluding septic shock) | 54 (30.7%) | 13 (22.8%) | 0.313 |
| Septic shock | 30 (17.0%) | 31 (54.4%) | < 0.001a |
| Enteral nutrition | 107 (60.8%) | 17 (29.8%) | < 0.001a |
| Parenteral nutrition | 67 (38.1%) | 14 (24.6%) | 0.078 |
| Urgent operation during ICU stay | 13 (7.4%) | 13 (22.8%) | 0.003 |
Data are number (%) of patients or Mean ± SD.
Our Institution: ISS, Injury Severity Score; NISS, New ISS; RTS, Revised Trauma Score; TRISS, Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score; RISC II, Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II; APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; SAPS II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale.
Variables included in the multivariate analysis.
The accuracy of different severity scores for 30-day mortality prediction is shown in Table 4. NISS showed the higher accuracy (0.901) followed by RISC II (0.883). Scores based only on physiological variables (RTS, GCS) and common scoring systems (APACHE II, SAPS II, SOFA) had low accuracy (< 0.750), while the rest (ISS, TRISS) had an intermediate one.
Table 4.
Accuracy of different scores in predicting 30-day mortality among critically ill trauma patients.
| Scores | Accuracy | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| GCS | 0.691 | 0.626–0.757 |
| ISS | 0.820 | 0.771–0.870 |
| NISS | 0.901 | 0.860–0.941 |
| RTS | 0.742 | 0.684–0.800 |
| TRISS | 0.859 | 0.816–0.903 |
| RISC II | 0.883 | 0.841–0.942 |
| APACHE II | 0.698 | 0.613–0.782 |
| SAPS II | 0.670 | 0.601–0.739 |
| SOFA | 0.690 | 0.626–0.755 |
GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; ISS, Injury Severity Score; NISS, New ISS; RTS, Revised Trauma Score; TRISS, Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score; RISC II, Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II; APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; SAPS II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale.
Discussion
Injury is one of the leading causes of death in both Greece and Europe comprising of 5% and 6%, respectively of all cases of deaths.2 Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%, which is comparable to that reported from other studies (23.8–32.7%).6, 7, 12 There are some studies that reported lower mortality rates (10.4–17.2%); this difference could be explained by the fact that patients in those studies had lower ISS (19.3–24.8).1, 4, 11, 16
In Greece, more than half of fatal injuries are due to road traffic accidents, as was the case in the present study.2, 7, 17 The predominance of vehicle accidents may be attributed to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, disregard for safety and traffic laws and poor condition of Greek roads.18
Early identification of patients at risk of mortality may improve the outcome of severely injured patients. Nine different prognostic scores were assessed for the prediction of 30-day ICU mortality. Other studies have compared these tests, with contradicting results.12, 19, 20 Even though scores comprising only of physiological variables such as GCS and RTS are more easily calculated, their accuracy is low. In some studies, general severity scores such as APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA showed high performance in predicting mortality as compared to anatomical ones, contradicting the results of our study.4, 20 Multivariate analysis independently associated mortality with higher NISS and lower RISC II. NISS showed the higher accuracy among tested scores and can be easily and readily applied in the Emergency Department, rendering it the best choice to rapidly guide physicians.12, 19 Our results contradict the study from Lefering et al.11 which showed higher accuracy for RISC II (0.953) as compared to NISS (0.849). The main difference among aforementioned study and the present one was that the former included all trauma patients, not only those requiring ICU admission. This difference was depicted in the higher values of severity scores (ISS, NISS, TRISS) and worst outcome reported in the present study. The advantage of NISS is its reliance solely on three anatomical variables (worst injuries) and not on any laboratory values, in contrast to RISC II which depends on 15 different variables (including anatomical, physiological and laboratory), leading to earlier recognition of severe trauma which is necessary to improve outcomes.
As previously shown, the most important cause of death among trauma patients was brain injury.4, 7 In our study, head and neck trauma was the most commonly injured area (73.6% of patients), while severe head injury (AIS ≥ 4) was independently associated with mortality among all trauma patients. The importance of head injury on mortality is depicted on the fact that head injury is incorporated into various trauma scoring systems either as an anatomical variable or as a physiological parameter (GCS).10, 11, 12 The high rate of traumatic brain injury in the present study may be explained by the fact that more than half of those who drove a motorcycle (77.3%), or a four-wheel vehicle (56.1%) didn’t wear helmet or seat-belt, respectively. The preventive effect of such safety measures is already well-established in the literature.16, 21
In accordance to previous studies, common complications such as acute kidney injury and hemorrhagic shock were associated with mortality.16, 22, 23 Sepsis and especially septic shock remain another important cause of morbidity and mortality among such patients. In the present study, 46.0% of patients developed at least one infection, as reported in previous studies (37–45%), resulting in higher mortality.1, 24, 25 In 2013, a study of trauma ICU patients in the United States found an infection rate of 17.1%, significantly lower than that reported in our study.26 The main explanation of such difference may be that only pneumonia and urinary tract infections were reported in that study,26 while other types of infections, such as bloodstream infections, were not included; these type of infections are the main cause of infections of patients treated in the Greek ICUs.27 The majority of infections in Greek ICUs, including ours, are caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, especially Klebsiella pneumoniae, that are associated with high mortality due to limited treatment options.27
Interestingly, enteral nutrition was associated with higher survival rates among our critically ill trauma patients. Even though enteral nutrition among critically ill patients in general is preferable to parenteral due to its effect in shortening ICU length of stay and reduction of infections, no effect on ICU or overall mortality is proven.28 Among traumatic brain injury patients, guidelines propose the early initiation of nutritional support, although the method of feeding remains a debatable subject.29 A study on patients with severe traumatic brain injury showed an important reduction in mortality and better GCS on the 7th day of ICU stay when enteral nutrition was used.30 Early initiation of enteral nutrition maintains the intestinal tract’s physical barrier and immune function, decreasing the risk for bacterial translocation.31 As a result, a lower rate of complications (gastrointestinal hemorrhages, sepsis, pneumonia, renal failure) and better outcomes (lower mortality, shorter length of stay) were noted.
The study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study conducted in one ICU. Second, the number of patients included in our study was relatively small, even though, our hospital is the only university responsible for the one-million inhabitants of southwestern Greece. Third, the present study included only the most severely injured patients and might not represent patients hospitalized in other wards.
Conclusions
In conclusion, trauma admissions in the ICU were associated with increased mortality, which was attributed to an increase of injury severity upon admission. Since road traffic accidents represent the majority of admitted patients, prevention programs and strategies focusing on helmet and seatbelt wearing should be a priority of national and local authorities. Our results also indicated that NISS was a superior score in predicting short-term mortality of severely injured patients, followed by RISC II. Traumatic brain injury was an important predictor of mortality among such patients, followed by acute kidney injury, septic and hemorrhagic shock.
Funding
There was no external financial support received in order to complete the present study, and only institutional funds were used.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
A part of this work was presented as a poster presentation at the 27th European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, 27 September--1 October 2014, Barcelona, Spain.
References
- 1.Brattstrom O., Granath F., Rossi P., et al. Early predictors of morbidity and mortality in trauma patients treated in the intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:1007–1017. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02266.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion (EuroSafe) 2014. Injuries in the European Union, Summary of injury statistics for the years 2010–2012. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/uploads/inline-files/IDB_Report_2014_final%202010-2012.pdf. (accessed September 11, 2017) [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pfeifer R., Tarkin I.S., Rocos B., et al. Patterns of mortality and causes of death in polytrauma patients — has anything changed? Injury. 2009;40:907–911. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ulvik A., Wentzel-Larsen T., Flaatten H. Trauma patients in the intensive care unit: short- and long-term survival and predictors of 30-day mortality. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:171–177. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01207.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Frutiger A., Ryf C., Bilat C., et al. Five years’ follow-up of severely injured ICU patients. J Trauma. 1991;31:1216–1225. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199109000-00004. discussion 25–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Leitgeb J., Mauritz W., Brazinova A., et al. Impact of concomitant injuries on outcomes after traumatic brain injury. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:659–668. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1710-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chalya P.L., Gilyoma J.M., Dass R.M., et al. Trauma admissions to the intensive care unit at a reference hospital in Northwestern Tanzania. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19:61. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fueglistaler P., Amsler F., Schuepp M., et al. Prognostic value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Simplified Acute Physiology II Score compared with trauma scores in the outcome of multiple-trauma patients. Am J Surg. 2010;200:204–214. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Baker S.P., O’Neill B., Haddon W., Jr., et al. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14:187–196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Boyd C.R., Tolson M.A., Copes W.S. Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma. 1987;27:370–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lefering R., Huber-Wagner S., Nienaber U., et al. Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the TraumaRegister DGU: the Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II. Crit Care. 2014;18:476. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0476-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Smith B.P., Goldberg A.J., Gaughan J.P., et al. A comparison of Injury Severity Score and New Injury Severity Score after penetrating trauma: a prospective analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79:269–274. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Thanapaisal C., Saksaen P. A comparison of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and the Trauma-Injury Severity Score (TRISS) for outcome assessment in Srinagarind Intensive Care Unit trauma patients. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95:S25–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Singer M., Deutschman C.S., Seymour C.W., et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120:c179–84. doi: 10.1159/000339789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Di Saverio S., Gambale G., Coccolini F., et al. Changes in the outcomes of severe trauma patients from 15-year experience in a Western European trauma ICU of Emilia Romagna region (1996-2010). A population cross-sectional survey study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014;399:109–126. doi: 10.1007/s00423-013-1143-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Trajano A.D., Pereira B.M., Fraga G.P. Epidemiology of in-hospital trauma deaths in a Brazilian university hospital. BMC Emerg Med. 2014;14:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-14-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pikoulis E., Filias V., Pikoulis N., et al. Patterns of injuries and motor-vehicle traffic accidents in Athens. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2006;13:190–193. doi: 10.1080/17457300500294547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tohira H., Jacobs I., Mountain D., et al. Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:63. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-20-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hwang S.Y., Lee J.H., Lee Y.H., et al. Comparison of the sequential organ failure assessment, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scoring system, and trauma and injury severity score method for predicting the outcomes of intensive care unit trauma patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:749–753. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2011.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kuo S.C.H., Kuo P.J., Rau C.S., et al. The protective effect of helmet use in motorcycle and bicycle accidents: a propensity score-matched study based on a trauma registry system. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:639. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4649-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Fujinaga J., Kuriyama A., Shimada N. Incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury in the Japanese trauma population: a prospective cohort study. Injury. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pfeifer R., Teuben M., Andruszkow H., et al. Mortality patterns in patients with multiple trauma: a systematic review of autopsy studies. PloS One. 2016;11 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Giamberardino H.I., Cesario E.P., Carmes E.R., et al. Risk factors for nosocomial infection in trauma patients. Braz J Infect Dis. 2007;11:285–289. doi: 10.1590/s1413-86702007000200024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Papia G., McLellan B.A., El-Helou P., et al. Infection in hospitalized trauma patients: incidence, risk factors, and complications. J Trauma. 1999;47:923–927. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199911000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Prin M., Li G. Complications and in-hospital mortality in trauma patients treated in intensive care units in the United States, 2013. Inj Epidemiol. 2016;3:18. doi: 10.1186/s40621-016-0084-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kolonitsiou F., Papadimitriou-Olivgeris M., Spiliopoulou A., et al. Trends of bloodstream infections in a university greek hospital during a three-year period: incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and seasonality in gram-negative predominance. Pol J Microbiol. 2017;66:171–180. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.7834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Elke G., van Zanten A.R., Lemieux M., et al. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2016;20:117. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1298-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Brain Trauma Foundation . 4th edition. 2016. Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. Campbell, California. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chiang Y.H., Chao D.P., Chu S.F., et al. Early enteral nutrition and clinical outcomes of severe traumatic brain injury patients in acute stage: a multi-center cohort study. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:75–80. doi: 10.1089/neu.2011.1801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Pu H., Doig G.S., Heighes P.T., Allingstrup M.J. Early enteral nutrition reduces mortality and improves other key outcomes in patients with major burn injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:2036–2042. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]