Prognostic assessment of severe trauma in southwest China: a single-center study based on six scoring systems
10.3760/cma.j.cn114656-20250407-00264
- VernacularTitle:中国西南地区严重创伤预后评估：基于六种评分系统的单中心研究分析
- Author:
Ke LI
1
;
Lei WANG
;
Haoran ZHU
;
Wei XIAO
;
Qiang XIANG
Author Information
1. 江苏省中医院重庆医院（重庆市永川区中医院）急诊科，重庆 402160
- Keywords:
Severe trauma;
Trauma scores;
Prognosis;
Evaluation;
Predictive performance;
ROC curve
- From:
Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine
2025;34(11):1560-1566
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the prognostic performance of six trauma scoring systems—Injury Severity Score (ISS), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health EvaluationⅡ (APACHE Ⅱ), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Prehospital Index (PHI), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the Circulation, Respiration, Abdomen, Motor, Speech (CRAMS) score—in predicting 28-day mortality among patients with severe trauma in Southwest China.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 479 patients with severe trauma admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University between January 2018 and October 2023. Inclusion criteria were: ① age ≥16 years; ② Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16; ③ admission within 24 hours post-injury. Exclusion criteria included: ① severe underlying chronic conditions; ② burns or electrical injuries; ③ incomplete clinical data. Based on 28-day outcomes, patients were stratified into a survival group ( n=424) and a death group ( n=55). All patients received standardized resuscitation and damage control interventions. Prehospital scores (PHI, RTS, CRAMS) were recorded at admission. In-hospital scores (ISS, APACHE Ⅱ, SOFA) were calculated using the worst physiological parameters within the first 24 hours. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons. Discriminative ability was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with pairwise comparisons using DeLong's test. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate net clinical benefit. Results:The RTS and CRAMS scores were significantly higher in the survival group, whereas ISS, APACHE Ⅱ, SOFA, and PHI scores were significantly lower in the death group (all P<0.05). The AUC values for predicting 28-day mortality, in descending order, were: APACHE Ⅱ (0.917), RTS (0.897), SOFA (0.873), PHI (0.848), CRAMS (0.831), and ISS (0.708). No significant difference in AUC was found between APACHE Ⅱ and RTS ( P=0.325). DCA showed that across most decision thresholds, both APACHE Ⅱ and RTS provided greater net clinical benefit than "treat-all" or "treat-none" strategies and other scores. Conclusions:Among the six scoring systems, APACHE Ⅱ demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for 28-day mortality in severe trauma patients, though its efficacy was comparable to RTS. DCA confirmed their superior clinical utility. A two-phase assessment strategy—using prehospital RTS for rapid triage followed by in-hospital APACHE Ⅱ for dynamic monitoring—is recommended to optimize clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in Southwest China.
