A Comparison of the Prehospital Motor Component of the Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS) to the Prehospital Total GCS (tGCS) as a Prehospital Risk Adjustment Measure for Trauma Patients

Comparison of on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale with GCS-motor for prediction of 30-day mortality and functional outcomes of patients with trauma in Asia

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

This study compared the on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the GCS-motor (GCS-M) for predictive accuracy of mortality and severe disability using a large, multicenter population of trauma patients in Asian countries.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ability of the prehospital GCS and GCS-M to predict 30-day mortality and severe disability in trauma patients.

DESIGN

We used the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study registry to enroll all trauma patients >18 years of age who presented to hospitals via emergency medical services from 1 January 2016 to November 30, 2018.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 16,218 patients were included in the analysis of 30-day mortality and 11 653 patients in the analysis of functional outcomes.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after injury, and the secondary outcome was severe disability at discharge defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥4. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were compared between GCS and GCS-M for these outcomes. Patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) were analyzed separately. The predictive discrimination ability of logistic regression models for outcomes (30-day mortality and MRS) between GCS and GCS-M is illustrated using AUROCs.

MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome for 30-day mortality was 1.04% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.917 (0.887-0.946) vs. GCS-M:0.907 (0.875-0.938), P  = 0.155. The secondary outcome for poor functional outcome (MRS ≥ 4) was 12.4% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.617 (0.597-0.637) vs. GCS-M: 0.613 (0.593-0.633), P  = 0.616. The subgroup analyses of patients with and without TBI demonstrated consistent discrimination ability between the GCS and GCS-M. The AUROC values of the GCS vs. GCS-M models for 30-day mortality and poor functional outcome were 0.92 (0.821-1.0) vs. 0.92 (0.824-1.0) ( P  = 0.64) and 0.75 (0.72-0.78) vs. 0.74 (0.717-0.758) ( P  = 0.21), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the prehospital setting, on-scene GCS-M was comparable to GCS in predicting 30-day mortality and poor functional outcomes among patients with trauma, whether or not there was a TBI.

Completeness of Pediatric Versus Adult Patient Assessment Documentation in the National Emergency Medical Services Information System

BACKGROUND

Pediatric prehospital encounters are proportionally low-frequency events. National pediatric readiness initiatives have targeted gaps in prehospital pediatric assessment and management. Regional studies suggest that pediatric vital signs are inconsistently obtained and documented. We aimed to assess national emergency medical services (EMS) data to evaluate completeness of assessment documentation for pediatric versus adult patients and to identify the documentation of condition-specific assessments.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of EMS encounters from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System for 2019, including all 9-1-1 encounters resulting in transport. Our primary outcome was the proportion of encounters with complete vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure) documented by pediatric age category relative to adult encounters. Pediatric patients were considered as those less than 18 years old. Our secondary outcome was condition-specific assessments for encounters with respiratory emergencies, cardiac complaints, and trauma. We performed multivariable logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for vital signs documentation by age after adjusting for sex, injury status, transport type (advanced vs basic life support), census region, urbanicity, organization nonprofit status, and organization type.

RESULTS

Of 18,918,914 EMS encounters, 6.4% involved pediatric patients. Documentation of complete vital signs was lowest in those <1 month old (30.8%) and rose with increasing age (highest in adults; 91.8%). Relative to adults, the adjusted odds of documented complete vital signs in patients <1 month old was 0.03 (95% CI 0.03-0.03) and increased with age to 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.77) in those 12-17 years old. Among those patients with respiratory, cardiac, and traumatic complaints, children had lower proportions of documented pulse oximetry, monitor use, and pain scores, respectively, compared to adults.

CONCLUSION

Documentation of complete vital signs and condition-specific assessments occurs less frequently in children, especially in younger age groups, as compared to adults, which is a finding that exists across urbanicity, region, and level of response. These findings provide a benchmark for clinical care, quality improvement, and research in the prehospital setting.

Prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Score for airway management in-ambulance: A score comparison

BACKGROUND

Prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Scores to estimate the requirement for advanced respiratory support is needed. To develop a prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Score to estimate the requirement for advanced respiratory support.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, emergency medical services (EMS)-delivered, longitudinal cohort derivationvalidation study carried out in 59 ambulances and five hospitals across five Spanish provinces. Adults with acute diseases evaluated, supported and discharged to the Emergency Department with high priority were eligible. The primary outcome was the need for invasive or non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS or IRS) in the prehospital scope at the first contact with the patient. The measures included the following: epidemiological endpoints, prehospital vital signs (respiratory rate, pulse oximetry saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, systolic and diastolic mean blood pressure, heart rate, tympanic temperature and consciousness level by the GCS).

RESULTS

Between 26 Oct 2018 and 26 Oct 2021, we enrolled 5793 cases. For NIRS prediction, the final model of the logistic regression included respiratory rate and pulse oximetry saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio. For the IRS case, the motor response from the Glasgow Coma Scale was also included. The REWS showed an AUC of 0.938 (95% CI: 0.918-0.958), a calibration-in-large of 0.026 and a higher net benefit as compared with the other scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that REWS is a remarkably aid for the decision-making process in the management of advanced respiratory support in prehospital care. Including this score in the prehospital scenario could improve patients' care and optimise the resources' management.

Development and validation of a novel poisoning agitation-sedation score for predicting the need for endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in acutely poisoned patients with disturbed consciousness

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of disturbed consciousness level (DCL) is crucial for predicting acutely poisoned patients' outcomes.

AIM

Development of a novel Poisoning Agitation-Sedation Score (PASS) to predict the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and mechanical ventilation (MV) in acutely poisoned patients with DCL. Validation of the proposed score on a new set of acutely poisoned patients with DCL.

METHODS

This study was conducted on 187 acutely poisoned patients with DCL admitted to hospital from June 2020 to November 2021 (Derivation cohort). Patients' demographics, toxicological data, neurological examination, calculation of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and outcomes were gathered for developing a new score. The proposed score was externally validated on 100 acutely poisoned patients with DCL (Validation cohort).

RESULTS

The PASS assessing sedation consists of FOUR (reflexes and respiration) and GCS (motor) and provides a significantly excellent predictive power (AUC = 0.975) at a cutoff ≤9 with 100% sensitivity and 92.11% specificity for predicting the need for ETI and MV in sedated patients. Additionally, adding RASS (agitation) to the previous model exhibits significantly good predictive power (AUC = 0.893), 90.32% sensitivity, and 73.68% specificity at a cutoff ≤14 for predicting the need for ETI and MV in disturbed consciousness patients with agitation.

CONCLUSION

The proposed PASS could be an excellent, valid and feasible tool to predict the need for ETI and MV in acutely poisoned disturbed consciousness patients with or without agitation.

Those who speak survive: the value of the verbal component of GCS in trauma

Aim

To evaluate the value of the individual components of GCS in predicting the survival of trauma patients in the Emergency Department.

Methods

Trauma patients who were admitted for more than 24 h or died after arrival at Al-Ain Hospital from January 2014 to December 2017 were studied. Children < 16 years, elderly > 80 years, patients with facial injuries, those intubated in the ER, and those with missing primary outcomes were excluded. Demography, vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), GCS components, Injury Severity Score (ISS), head AIS, and death were compared between those who died and those who survived. Factors with a p value of < 0.1 were entered into a backward likelihood logistic regression model to define factors that predict death.

Results

A total of 2548 patients were studied, out of whom 11 (0.4%) died. The verbal component of GCS (p < 0.001) and the ISS (p = 0.047) were the only significant predictors for death in the logistic regression model. The AUC (95% CI) of the GCS-VR was 0.763 (0.58–0.95), p = 0.003. The best point of GCS-VR that predicted survival was 5, having a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 54.5%, positive predictive value of 99. 8%, negative predictive value of 7.3%, and likelihood ratio of 2.13.

Conclusion

In general trauma patients, acute trauma care professionals can use GCS-VR to predict survival when clinical condition permits instead of the total GCS score or ISS.

An independent, external validation and component analysis of the Surviving Penetrating Injury to the Brain score for civilian cranial gunshot injuries

OBJECTIVE

The Surviving Penetrating Injury to the Brain (SPIN) score utilizes clinical variables to estimate in-hospital and 6-month mortality for patients with civilian cranial gunshot wounds (cGSWs) and demonstrated good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.880) in an initial validation study. The goal of this study was to provide an external, independent validation of the SPIN score for in-hospital and 6-month mortality.

METHODS

To accomplish this, the authors retrospectively reviewed 6 years of data from their institutional trauma registry. Variables used to determine SPIN score were collected, including sex, transfer status, injury motive, pupillary reactivity, motor component of the Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and international normalized ratio (INR) at admission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified variables associated with mortality. The authors compared AUC between models by using a nonparametric test for equality.

RESULTS

Of the 108 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 101 had all SPIN score components available. The SPIN model had an AUC of 0.962. The AUC for continuous mGCS score alone (0.932) did not differ significantly from the AUC for the full SPIN model (p = 0.26). The AUC for continuous mGCS score (0.932) was significantly higher compared to categorical mGCS score (0.891, p = 0.005). Use of only mGCS score resulted in fewer exclusions due to missing data. No additional variable included in the predictive model alongside continuous mGCS score was a significant predictor of inpatient mortality, 6-month mortality, or increased model discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Given these findings, continuous 6-point mGCS score may be sufficient as a generalizable predictor of inpatient and 6-month mortality in patients with cGSW, demonstrating excellent discrimination and reduced bias due to missing data.

The prediction value of Glasgow coma scale-pupils score in neurocritical patients: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

External validation is necessary before  its clinical recommendation in new setting. The aim is to externally validate Glasgow Coma Scale-pupils score (GCS-P) in neurocritical patients and to compare its performances with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and its derivatives.

METHODS

GCS-P at admission was calculated for individual based on the model developed by Brennan et al. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), Nagelkerke's R² and Brier scores were used to assess external validity of GCS-P to predict mortality in neurocritical patients and to compare predictive performance with GCS and its derivatives.

SUBJECTS

4372 neurocritical patients from intensive care units of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States between 2001 and 2012.

RESULTS

GCS-P showed good discrimination (AUC 0.847 for in-hospital mortality and 0.774 for ninety-day mortality), modest calibration (Nagelkerke's R2 33.1% for in-hospital mortality and 23.3% for ninety-day mortality). Predictive performances of GCS and its derivatives was inferior to GCS-P.

CONCLUSIONS

GCP-P discriminated well in between death in neurocritical patients. GCP-P improved predictive performance for short-term mortality over GCS and its derivatives in neurocritical patients. It would be a simple, early and reasonable daily routine option for prognosis assessment in neurocritical setting.

The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of its Parts: GCS Versus GCS-Motor for Triage in Geriatric Trauma

BACKGROUND

Trauma field triage matches injured patients to the appropriate level of care. Prior work suggests the Glasgow Coma Scale motor (GCSm) is as accurate as the total GCS (GCSt) and easier to use. However, older patients present with higher GCS for a given injury, and as such, it is unclear if this substitution is advisable. Our objective was to compare the GCS deficit patterns between geriatric and adult patients presenting with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as the diagnostic performance of the GCSm versus GCSt within the field triage criteria in these populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients ≥16 y in the National Trauma Data Bank 2007-2015. GCS deficit patterns were compared between adults (16-65) and geriatric patients (>65). Measures of diagnostic performance of GCSt≤13 versus GCSm≤5 criteria to predict trauma center need (TCN) were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 4,480,185 patients were analyzed (28% geriatric). Geriatric patients more frequently presented with non-motor-only deficits than adults (16.4% versus 12.4%, P < 0.001), and these patients demonstrated higher severe TBI (40.3% versus 36.7%, P < 0.001) and craniotomy (5.8% versus 5.1%, P < 0.001) rates. GCSt was more sensitive and accurate in predicting TCN for geriatric patients and had lower rates of undertriage as compared to GCSm.

CONCLUSIONS

Geriatric patients more frequently present with non-motor-only deficits after injury, and this is associated with severe head injury. Substitution of GCSm for GCSt would exacerbate undertriage in geriatric patients and, thus, the total GCS should be maintained for field triage in geriatric patients.

Does an assessment aid improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by helicopter rescuers in Hong Kong: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is one of the most commonly used patient assessment tools. This study aimed to determine whether an assessment aid can improve the GCS scoring accuracy by helicopter rescuers in Hong Kong.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, Air Crewman Officers (ACMOs) of Government Flying Service in Hong Kong were randomised into two groups, with and without assessment aid. The group with the assessment aid was provided a printed copy of the GCS scoring table while watching the patient simulated videos. Ten videos with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 15 were used to test the performance of total GCS (tGCS) and motor component of GCS (mGCS) scoring.

RESULTS

78% (n=25/32) of ACMOs participated in the study. By comparing the groups with and without an assessment aid, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of tGCS score (60% versus 60%; p=0.85) or mGCS score (80% versus 80%; p=0.75). Overall, mGCS has a higher accuracy than tGCS (p<0.001). The accuracy of mGCS was better than tGCS in mild and moderate brain injury scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The use of an assessment aid did not improve GCS scoring by helicopter rescuers. The assessing of mGCS was more accurate than tGCS, further supporting the use of mGCS for prehospital conscious level assessment.

Comparison of two simple models for prediction of short term mortality in patients after severe traumatic brain injury

INTRODUCTION

The subscale motor score of Glasgow Coma Scale (msGCS) and the Abbreviated Injury Score of head region (HAIS) are validated prognostic factors in traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim was to compare the prognostic performance of a HAIS-based prediction model including HAIS, pupil reactivity and age, and the reference prediction model including msGCS in emergency department (ED), pupil reactivity and age.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a prospective epidemiological study including patients after severe TBI (HAIS > 3) with follow-up from the time of accident until 14 days or earlier death was performed in Switzerland. Performance of prediction, based on accuracy of discrimination [area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC)], calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and validity (bootstrapping with 2000 repetitions to correct) for optimism of the two prediction models were investigated. A non-inferiority approach was performed and an a priori threshold for important differences was established.

RESULTS

The cohort included 808 patients [median age 56 {inter-quartile range (IQR) 33-71}, median motor part of GCS in ED 1 (1-6), abnormal pupil reactivity 29.0%] with a death rate of 29.7% at 14 days. The accuracy of discrimination was similar (AUROC HAIS-based prediction model: 0.839; AUROC msGCS-based prediction model: 0.826, difference of the 2 AUROC 0.013 (-0.007 to 0.037). A similar calibration was observed (Hosmer-Lemeshow X² 11.64, p = 0.168 vs. Hosmer-Lemeshow X² 8.66, p = 0.372). Internal validity of HAIS-based prediction model was high (optimism corrected AUROC: 0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of prediction for short-term mortality after severe TBI with HAIS-based prediction model was non-inferior to reference prediction model using msGCS as predictor.

Comparison of two prehospital predictive models for mortality and impaired consciousness after severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

The primary aim was to investigate the performance of a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics based predictive model (NACA-BM) for mortality at 14 days and a reference model using motor GCS (GCS-RM). The secondary aim was to compare the models for impaired consciousness of survivors at 14 days (IC-14; GCS ≤ 13).

METHODS

Patients ≥16 years having sustained TBI with an abbreviated injury scale score of head region (HAIS) of >3 were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to test models for death and IC-14. The discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver-operating curves (AUROCs); noninferiority margin was -5% between the AUROCs. Calibration was assessed using the Hosmer Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.

RESULTS

Six hundred and seventy seven patients were included. The median age was 54 (IQR 32-71). The mortality rate was 31.6%; 99 of 438 surviving patients (22.6%) had an IC-14. Discrimination of mortality was 0.835 (95%CI 0.803-0.867) for the NACA-BM and 0.839 (0.807-0.872) for the GCS-RM; the difference of the discriminative ability was -0.4% (-2.3% to +1.7%). Calibration was appropriate for the NACA-BM (χ² 8.42; P = 0. 393) and for the GCS-RM (χ² 3.90; P = 0. 866). Discrimination of IC-14 was 0.757 (0.706-0.808) for the NACA-BM and 0.784 (0.734-0.835) for the GCS-RM; the difference of the discriminative ability was -2.5% (-7.8% to +2.6%). Calibration was appropriate for the NACA-BM (χ² 10.61; P = 0.225) and for the GCS-RM (χ² 6.26; P = 0.618).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital prediction of mortality after TBI was good with both models, and the NACA-BM was not inferior to the GCS-RM. Prediction of IC-14 was moderate in both models.

Study of Simplified Coma Scales: Acute Stroke Patients with Tracheal Intubation

Background:

Whether the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) can assess intubated patients is still a topic of controversy. We compared the test performance of the GCS motor component (GCS-M)/Simplified Motor Score (SMS) to the total of the GCS in predicting the outcomes of intubated acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational data was performed. Between January 2012 and October 2015, 106 consecutive acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients with intubation were included in the study. GCS, GCS-M, GCS eye-opening component, and SMS were documented on admission and at 24, 48, and 72 h after admission to Neurointensive Care Unit (NCU). Outcomes were death and unfavorable prognosis (modified Rankin Scale: 5–6) at NCU discharge. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was obtained to determine the prognostic performance and best cutoff value for each scoring system. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves (AUCs) was performed using the Z-test.

Results:

Of 106 patients included in the study, 41 (38.7%) patients died, and 69 (65.1%) patients had poor prognosis when discharged from NCU. The four time points within 72 h of admission to the NCU were equivalent for each scale's predictive power, except that 0 h was the best for each scale in predicting outcomes of patients with right-hemisphere lesions. Nonsignificant difference was found between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs in predicting death at 0 h (0.721 vs. 0.717, Z = 0.135, P = 0.893) and 72 h (0.730 vs. 0.765, Z = 1.887, P = 0.060), in predicting poor prognosis at 0 h (0.827 vs. 0.819, Z = 0.395, P = 0.693), 24 h (0.771 vs. 0.760, Z = 0.944, P = 0.345), 48 h (0.732 vs. 0.741, Z = 0.593, P = 0.590), and 72 h (0.775 vs. 0.780, Z = 0.302, P = 0.763). AUCs in predicting death for patients with left-hemisphere lesions ranged from 0.700 to 0.804 for GCS-M and from 0.700 to 0.824 for GCS, in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.841 to 0.969 for GCS-M and from 0.875 to 0.969 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h (P > 0.05). No significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs was found in predicting death (0.964 vs. 0.964, P = 1.000) and poor prognosis (1.000 vs. 1.000, P = 1.000) for patients with right-hemisphere lesions at 0 h. AUCs in predicting death for patients with brainstem or cerebella were poor for GCS-M (<0.700), in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.727 to 0.801 for GCS-M and from 0.704 to 0.820 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h (P > 0.05). The SMS AUCs (<0.700) in predicting outcomes were poor.

Conclusions:

The GCS-M approaches the same test performance as the GCS in assessing the prognosis of intubated acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients. The GCS-M could be accurately and reliably applied in patients with hemisphere lesions, but caution must be taken for patients with brainstem or cerebella lesions.

The Estimated Verbal GCS Subscore in Intubated Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: Is it Really Better?

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has limited utility in intubated patients due to the inability to assign verbal subscores. The verbal subscore can be derived from the eye and motor subscores using a mathematical model, but the advantage of this method and its use in outcome prognostication in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients remains unknown. We compared the validated "Core+CT"-IMPACT-model performance in 251 intubated TBI patients prospectively enrolled in the longitudinal OPTIMISM study between November 2009 and May 2015 when substituting the original motor GCS (mGCS) with the total estimated GCS (teGCS; with estimated verbal subscore). We hypothesized that model performance would improve with teGCS. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were assessed at 3 and 12 months by trained interviewers. In the complete case analysis, there was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the discrimination (C-statistic) at either time-point using the mGCS versus the teGCS (3 months: 0.893 vs. 0.871;12 months: 0.926 vs. 0.92). At 3 months, IMPACT-model calibration was excellent with mGCS and teGCS (Hosmer-Lemeshow "goodness-of-fit" chi square p value 0.9293 and 0.9934, respectively); it was adequate at 12 months with teGCS (0.5893) but low with mGCS (0.0158), possibly related to diminished power at 12 months. At both time-points, motor GCS contributed more to the variability of outcome (Nagelkerke ΔR²) than teGCS (3 months: 5.8% vs. 0.4%; 12 months: 5% vs. 2.6%). The sensitivity analysis with imputed missing outcomes yielded similar results, with improved calibration for both GCS variants. In our cohort of intubated TBI patients, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful improvement in the IMPACT-model performance by substituting the original mGCS with teGCS.