首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Using the injury severity score to adjust for comorbid trauma may be double counting burns: implications for burn research
Authors:Jud C. Janak  Michael S. Clemens  Jeffrey T. Howard  Tuan D. Le  Leopoldo C. Cancio  Kevin K. Chung  Jennifer M. Gurney  Jonathan A. Sosnov  Ian J. Stewart
Affiliation:1. Joint Trauma System, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, United States;2. San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, United States;3. United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, United States;4. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Rd, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States;5. David Grant USAF Medical Center, Clinical Investigation Facility, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535, United States
Abstract:

Background

The injury severity score considers burn size and inhalation injury in estimating overall anatomical injury severity. Models that adjust for injury severity score in addition to total burn size and inhalation injury may therefore be double counting the risk from these individual burn characteristics, and obscuring (or overemphasizing) the contribution of risk from each source. The primary aim of this study was to compare differences in the estimated mortality risk of burn trauma using the traditional injury severity score (ISS) calculation and the non-burn injury severity score (NBISS) to examine how separating out the risk attributable to the burn injury versus other trauma changes the interpretation and clinical assessment.

Methods

Among U.S. casualties sustaining burns during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from March 2003 to October 2013, we performed a retrospective cohort study. Unadjusted, adjusted, and weighted Cox proportional hazards models were performed to estimate the risk of age, burn injury severity, and non-burn injury severity on mortality. Weighted hazard ratios and adjusted survival curves were performed using non-parametric inverse probability weighting.

Results

Our final sample consisted of 902 service members with a mortality proportion of 5.7% (n = 51). Adjusting for non-burn trauma with traditional ISS attenuated the risk of percent total body surface area burned (%TBSA) by 20% when modeled continuously [HR (95% CI): 1.27 (1.10–1.32) vs. 1.07 (0.99–1.15]. However, the adjusted model using NBISS only attenuated the associated mortality risk of burn size by 5% [HR (95% CI): 1.22 (1.12–1.34)] and had a similar model fit (AIC: 484.2 vs. 478.6). For the weighted Cox proportional hazards models, the risk from a large burn (%TBSA  60) was also attenuated when adjusting for ISS [HR (95% CI): 2.80 (1.18–6.64)] compared to the model adjusting for NBISS [HR (95% CI): 5.63 (2.79–11.35)].

Conclusion

Our analysis comparing the use of traditional ISS and NBISS to measure comorbid non-burn trauma resulted in different interpretations for the effect of %TBSA on subsequent mortality. Our results suggest that the association of %TBSA with death can be obscured by the inclusion of traditional ISS. Therefore, we recommend using NBISS when constructing statistical models in this patient population.
Keywords:Burns  Wounds and injuries  Trauma
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号