A Comparison of the Predictive Value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for Mortality and Length of Hospital Stay in Head Injury Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Uganda: A Diagnostic Prospective Study

The Predictive Value of the Verbal Glasgow Coma Scale in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global health concern, imposing significant burdens on individuals and healthcare systems. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), a widely utilized instrument for evaluating neurological status, includes 3 variables: motor, verbal, and eye opening. The GCS plays a crucial role in TBI severity stratification. While extensive research has explored the predictive capabilities of the overall GCS score and its motor component, the Verbal Glasgow Coma Scale (V-GCS) has garnered less attention.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the predictive accuracy of the V-GCS in assessing outcomes in patients with TBI, with a particular focus on functional outcome and mortality. In addition, we intend to compare its predictive performance with other components of the GCS.

METHODS

A systematic review, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was conducted utilizing the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria encompassed 10 clinical studies involving patients with TBI, wherein the level of consciousness was assessed using the verbal GCS score. Predominant statistical measures employed were odds ratios (ORs) and area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Recorded findings consistently underscore that lower V-GCS scores are associated with adverse functional outcomes and mortality in patients with TBI. Despite the predictive accuracy of the V-GCS, the Motor Glasgow Coma Scale (M-GCS) emerges as a superior predictor.

CONCLUSION

In the context of TBI outcome prediction, the V-GCS demonstrates its efficacy as a prognostic tool. However, the M-GCS exhibits superior performance compared with the V-GCS. These insights underscore the multifaceted nature of TBI assessment and emphasize the necessity of considering distinct components of the Glasgow Coma Scale for comprehensive evaluation. Further research is warranted to refine and improve the application of these predictive measures in clinical practice.

Glasgow coma scale compared to other trauma scores in discriminating in-hospital mortality of traumatic brain injury patients admitted to urban Indian hospitals: A multicentre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is one of the most commonly used trauma scores and is a good predictor of outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. There are other more complex scores with additional physiological parameters. Whether they discriminate better than GCS in predicting mortality in TBI patients is debatable. The aim of this study was to compare the discrimination of GCS with that of MGAP, GAP, RTS and KTS for 24-hour and 30-day in-hospital mortality in adult TBI patients, in a resource limited LMIC setting.

METHOD

We analysed data from the multicentre, observational trauma cohort Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcome (TITCO) in India. We included all patients 18 years or older, admitted from the emergency department with TBI. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to quantify and compare the discrimination of all scores: GCS; Revised Trauma Score (RTS); mechanism, GCS, age, systolic blood pressure (MGAP); GCS, age, systolic blood pressure (GAP) and Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) in the prediction of 24-hour and 30-day in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3306 TBI patients were included in this study. The majority were within the GCS range 3-8. The commonest mechanism of injury was road traffic injuries [1907(58.0%)]. In-hospital mortality was 27.2% (899). There was no significant difference in discrimination in 24-hour in-hospital mortality when comparing GCS with MGAP and GAP. While GCS performed better than KTS, RTS performed better than GCS. For 30-day in-hospital mortality, GCS discriminated significantly better compared with KTS, but there was no significant difference when compared to MGAP and RTS. GAP discriminated significantly better when compared with GCS.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the discrimination of GCS is comparable to that of more complex trauma scores in predicting 24-hour and 30-day in-hospital mortality in adult TBI patients in a resource limited LMIC setting.

Incidence of mortality and its predictors among patients with head injury admitted to adult intensive care unit at AaBET and ALERT hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

Traumatic head injury, referred to as the "silent epidemic", remains a growing public health concern and the leading cause of mortality in young adults, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries, including Ethiopia. However, estimates of the traumatic brain injury burden from low and middle-income countries are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess outcome and its associated factors among patients with head injury admitted to the Adult Intensive care unit at AaBET and ALERT hospitals, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

Institution-based retrospective cohort study was conducted at AaBET and ALERT hospitals from February 01, 2019 to January 30, 2020. All head injury patients' records were reviewed. A structured checklist was used to collect data. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with death among head injury patients.

Result

Out of 205 patients, 178 (86.8%) improved, while 27 (13.2%) died. Road traffic accident was the most common cause of head injury (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 46.3%). Patients with pulse rate admission (AOR = 1.49), NA + level (3.48), type of head injury (AOR = 3.67), mechanical ventilation (AOR = 4.70) were significant predictors of death among patients with head injuries.

Conclusion

The incidence of death among head injury patients was 13.2% (27). Road traffic accident was the leading cause of head injury. Pulse rate, plasma sodium level, penetrating head injury, being on a mechanical ventilator were predictors of death among traumatic head injury (THI) patients treated for head injuries. Prevention of road traffic accidents and continuous awareness creation about the consequences of a road traffic accident is recommended.

Glasgow Coma Scale Versus Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of ICU admitted Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Introduction

There is no consensus on the performance of decision rules in predicting the prognosis of trauma patients. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the value of Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and physiologic scoring systems in predicting mortality and poor outcome of trauma patients.

Methods

This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted on multiple trauma patients admitted to the intensive care units of two hospitals in Tehran, Iran, from 21 November 2020 to 22 May 2021. The patients' demographic characteristics, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), the vital signs, and the GCS on admission were recorded. Finally, the mortality, disability, and complete recovery of patients at the time of discharge were evaluated and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the performance of physiologic scoring systems with GCS.

Results

200 trauma patients with the mean age of 43.53±19.84 years were evaluated (74% male). The area under the ROC curve for New Trauma Score (NTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score (GAPS) ,Glasgow coma scale (GCS) in prediction of mortality were 0.95, 0.95, 0.83, 0.89, 0.91, 0.84, 0.77, 0.97, and 0.98 respectively. The performance of GCS was statistically superior to RTS (P=0.005), WPSS (P=0.0001), RAPS (P=0.0002), REMS (P=0.002), MEWS (P<0.0001), and NEWS (P<0.0001). However, the performance of GCS, NTS (P=0.146), and GAPS (P=0.513) were not significantly different. Also, in prediction of poor outcomes, the AUC of GCS (0.98) was significantly higher than RTS (0.95), RAPS (0.85), REMS (0.85), MEWS (0.84), NEWS (0.77), and WPSS (0.75).

Conclusion

The GCS score seems to be a better instrument to predict mortality and poor outcome in trauma patients compared to other tools due to its high accuracy, wide application, and easy calculation.