背景:无争议的空中移动和战斗伤亡医疗护理的进步导致了病死率的下降。然而,在未来的大规模作战行动中,军方已经制定了一项多领域作战计划,以击败接近对手的对手。长期的伤亡护理和大规模伤亡情况将变得更加普遍。院前友好的评分系统,例如休克指数(SI)和修订的创伤评分(RTS)可以提供有用的分诊数据。发展准确,数据驱动,分诊系统将是优化资源管理的关键,care,和运送战斗伤亡人员。
方法:我们纳入了2007年1月1日至2020年3月17日国防部创伤登记处的数据。由美国成年军人或联军军人组成的数据作为基线队列进行分析,那些在24小时内死亡的人被纳入早期死亡队列.我们对人口统计和伤害数据进行了统计分析,SI和RTS测量每个值的接收器操作特性(ROC)以预测早期死亡。
结果:早期死亡队列的损伤严重程度评分明显更高(25vs.5),并且每个身体区域的严重伤害百分比高于基线队列。早期死亡队列头部和颈部严重损伤的发生率是基线队列的五倍(43.4%vs8.1%),比值比(OR)为8.0(95%置信区间5.7-11.1),其次是皮肤(13.6%vs1.9%),OR为6.3(95%CI3.8-10.3)。平均SI为1.21对0.80。修订后的创伤评分(RTS)为4.18对7.34。RTS在接收器操作特性下具有较高的面积(对于SI,0.896对0.716)。
结论:头和皮肤的严重损伤与头24小时内的死亡密切相关。RTS似乎是比单独的SI更准确的评估损伤死亡率的工具。军事医务人员在资源有限且延迟撤离的情况下,在未来的冲突中对人员伤亡进行分类时,应考虑这些因素。
BACKGROUND: Uncontested air movement and advances for medical care of combat casualties have resulted in a decreased case fatality rate. However, in future large-scale combat operations, the military has established a plan for multidomain operations to defeat near-peer adversaries. Prolonged casualty care and mass casualty scenarios will become more prevalent. Prehospital friendly scoring systems such as the shock index (SI) and revised trauma score (RTS) may provide useful triage data. Development of accurate, data-driven, triage systems will be key to optimize management of resources, care, and transport of combat casualties.
METHODS: We included data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry between 01 January 2007 to 17 March 2020. Data comprised of adult US military or coalition service members for analysis as the baseline cohort, and those who died within 24 hours were included in the early death cohort. We performed statistical analysis on demographics and injury data, SI and RTS to measure the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of each value to predict early death.
RESULTS: The early death cohort had a significantly higher injury severity score (25 vs. 5) and a higher percentage of serious injuries in every body region than the baseline cohort. The early death cohort sustained serious injuries to the head and neck at a rate five times that of the baseline cohort (43.4% vs 8.1%) with odds ratio (OR) of death 8.0 (95% confidence interval 5.7-11.1) followed by skin (13.6% versus 1.9%) with an OR of 6.3 (95% CI 3.8-10.3). The mean SI was 1.21 versus 0.80. The revised trauma score (RTS) was 4.18 versus 7.34. The RTS had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic (0.896 versus 0.716 for SI).
CONCLUSIONS: Serious injuries to the head and skin were most strongly associated with death within the first 24 hours. The RTS appears to be a more accurate tool than SI alone for assessing injury mortality. Military medical personnel should consider these factors when triaging casualties during future conflicts in resource limited settings with delayed evacuation.