休克指数和脉压作为美国和联军在伊拉克和阿富汗大量输血和死亡的预测因子的分析。

David A Sorensen, Michael D April, Andrew D Fisher, Steven G Schauer
{"title":"休克指数和脉压作为美国和联军在伊拉克和阿富汗大量输血和死亡的预测因子的分析。","authors":"David A Sorensen,&nbsp;Michael D April,&nbsp;Andrew D Fisher,&nbsp;Steven G Schauer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among combat casualties with survivable injuries, the most common cause of mortality is massive hemorrhage. The objective of this study was to identify the accuracy of shock index (SI) and pulse pressure (PP) for predicting receipt of massive transfusion and death on the battlefield. The study searched the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 2007 to August 2016 using a series of procedural codes to identify casualties which has been previously described. This is a secondary analysis of casualties analyzing SI. This study analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and regression analyses. Within that dataset, there were 15,540 that were US Forces (75.1%), Coalition Forces (14.5%) or contractors (10.3%)-of which, 1,261 (7.9%) underwent massive transfusion. On ROC analyses for SI, this study found an overall optimal threshold at 0.91 with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 with a sensitivity of 0.81 and specificity of 0.87 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 0.91 with an AUC of 0.76 with a sensitivity of 0.67 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. On ROC analyses for PP, the study found an overall optimal threshold at 48 with an AUC of 0.71 with a sensitivity of 0.56 and specificity of 0.76 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 44 with an AUC of 0.75 with a sensitivity of 0.60 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. SI and PP may accurately predict receipt of massive transfusion and of mortality in a combat casualty population.</p>","PeriodicalId":74148,"journal":{"name":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","volume":" PB 8-21-07/08/09","pages":"63-68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analysis of the Shock Index and Pulse Pressure as a Predictor for Massive Transfusion and Death in US and Coalition Iraq and Afghanistan.\",\"authors\":\"David A Sorensen,&nbsp;Michael D April,&nbsp;Andrew D Fisher,&nbsp;Steven G Schauer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Among combat casualties with survivable injuries, the most common cause of mortality is massive hemorrhage. The objective of this study was to identify the accuracy of shock index (SI) and pulse pressure (PP) for predicting receipt of massive transfusion and death on the battlefield. The study searched the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 2007 to August 2016 using a series of procedural codes to identify casualties which has been previously described. This is a secondary analysis of casualties analyzing SI. This study analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and regression analyses. Within that dataset, there were 15,540 that were US Forces (75.1%), Coalition Forces (14.5%) or contractors (10.3%)-of which, 1,261 (7.9%) underwent massive transfusion. On ROC analyses for SI, this study found an overall optimal threshold at 0.91 with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 with a sensitivity of 0.81 and specificity of 0.87 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 0.91 with an AUC of 0.76 with a sensitivity of 0.67 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. On ROC analyses for PP, the study found an overall optimal threshold at 48 with an AUC of 0.71 with a sensitivity of 0.56 and specificity of 0.76 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 44 with an AUC of 0.75 with a sensitivity of 0.60 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. SI and PP may accurately predict receipt of massive transfusion and of mortality in a combat casualty population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)\",\"volume\":\" PB 8-21-07/08/09\",\"pages\":\"63-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在可存活的战斗伤亡中,最常见的死亡原因是大出血。本研究的目的是确定休克指数(SI)和脉压(PP)的准确性,以预测战场上大量输血的接收和死亡。该研究检索了2007年1月至2016年8月期间国防部创伤登记处的数据,使用了一系列程序代码来识别先前描述的伤亡情况。这是对SI伤亡的二次分析。本研究采用受试者工作特征(ROC)及回归分析进行分析。在该数据集中,有15540人是美军(75.1%)、联军(14.5%)或承包商(10.3%),其中1261人(7.9%)接受了大规模输血。在SI的ROC分析中,本研究发现预测大量输血的总体最佳阈值为0.91,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.89,敏感性为0.81,特异性为0.87。研究发现,预测死亡的最佳阈值为0.91,AUC为0.76,敏感性为0.67,特异性为0.82。在PP的ROC分析中,该研究发现预测大量输血的最佳阈值为48,AUC为0.71,敏感性为0.56,特异性为0.76。研究发现,预测死亡的最佳阈值为44,AUC为0.75,敏感性为0.60,特异性为0.82。SI和PP可以准确地预测大量输血的接受和战斗伤亡人口的死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Analysis of the Shock Index and Pulse Pressure as a Predictor for Massive Transfusion and Death in US and Coalition Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among combat casualties with survivable injuries, the most common cause of mortality is massive hemorrhage. The objective of this study was to identify the accuracy of shock index (SI) and pulse pressure (PP) for predicting receipt of massive transfusion and death on the battlefield. The study searched the Department of Defense Trauma Registry from January 2007 to August 2016 using a series of procedural codes to identify casualties which has been previously described. This is a secondary analysis of casualties analyzing SI. This study analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and regression analyses. Within that dataset, there were 15,540 that were US Forces (75.1%), Coalition Forces (14.5%) or contractors (10.3%)-of which, 1,261 (7.9%) underwent massive transfusion. On ROC analyses for SI, this study found an overall optimal threshold at 0.91 with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 with a sensitivity of 0.81 and specificity of 0.87 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 0.91 with an AUC of 0.76 with a sensitivity of 0.67 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. On ROC analyses for PP, the study found an overall optimal threshold at 48 with an AUC of 0.71 with a sensitivity of 0.56 and specificity of 0.76 for predicting massive transfusion. The study found an optimal threshold of 44 with an AUC of 0.75 with a sensitivity of 0.60 and specificity of 0.82 for predicting death. SI and PP may accurately predict receipt of massive transfusion and of mortality in a combat casualty population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Closing the Trauma and Critical Care Gap: A Paradigm Shift through Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. MRI Predictive Model's Utility in a Recruit Training Environment for Tibia Stress Fractures. Platelet-Rich Plasma Improves Strength and Speed of Recovery in an Active-Duty Soldier with Isolated Injury to the Lateral Collateral Ligament of the Knee: A Case Report. The Continued Misadventures of Intentional C4 Ingestion: A Case Cluster. Impact of a Novel Biplane User Interface on Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access Performance: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1