运输能力评估量表(TAS)和运输相关死亡率(TAS -死亡率)危重患者和急诊相关损伤患者

D. Shelukhin, S. Aleksanin, V. Rybnikov, A. I. Pavlov
{"title":"运输能力评估量表(TAS)和运输相关死亡率(TAS -死亡率)危重患者和急诊相关损伤患者","authors":"D. Shelukhin, S. Aleksanin, V. Rybnikov, A. I. Pavlov","doi":"10.25016/2541-7487-2023-0-1-78-86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. The existing traditional tools (scales) to assess severity of the patient’s condition and death probability do not take into account a set of crucial parameters for the upcoming medical evacuation.The objective is to develop the Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportability-associated mortality (TAS-mortality) tool to evaluate critical patients and patients injured in emergency situations (ES) of all age groups at different stages of medical evacuation using all types of transportation, followed by inpatient treatment.Methods. In total, we analyzed N=217 clinical cases of medical evacuation using different types of transportation in combination with either traditional intensive care (n=149, control group) or ECMO (n=68, trial group) due to refractory respiratory and/or circulatory insufficiency in all age groups. Once the patients embarked on medical evacuation, they were immediately split in groups to assess their condition while transportation and within the next 72 hours (associated period). A new scale (formula) to assess patient’s transportability and probability of mortality, including in the ECMO setting, was formulated based on the following statistical techniques: one-factor forecasting, risk classes of disorder development and logistic regression modeling applied to such target indicators as “death”, “transportation negative impact on patient’s condition” and other factors. Most significant factors were further embedded in the new transportability and probability of death assessment scale (formula).Results and discussion. The Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) was developed using logistic regression model measuring the impact of transportation on the patient’s condition: y = exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7) / 1+ exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7), where: у – transportability assessment of patient; x1 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110); x2 (Age ≥ 65 years); x3 (VIS ≥ 4 points); x4 (PaCO2 ≥ 55 mm Hg); x5 (SvO2 ≤ 60 %); x6 (HR∙ ≥ 127 beats per minute); x7 (ECMO application). Depending on the evacuation conditions, correction factors were as follows: x1 – 0.75 if the patient is to be transported by plane, x6 – 0.65 if the patient’s body weight is less than 10 kg. The results were translated into a 100-point scoring system: patients scoring up to 30 points were available for evacuation; 30 to 70 indicated evacuation to be performed in ongoing intensive care setting; over 70 indicated impossibility of evacuation until the patient is stabilized and subcompensated. We also developed the new TAS-mortality 100-point scale: y = exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10,) / 1+ exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10), where: y – probability of outcome – death; x1 (lactate ≥ 8 mmol/L), x2 (age ≥ 65 лет), x3 (creatinine ≥ 300 µmol/L), x4 (duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 7 days), x5 (bilirubin ≥ 102 µmol/L), x6 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110), x7 (CPR), F8 (VIS ≥ 4 points), x9 (PaCO2 ≥ 70 mm Hg), x10 (SvO2 ≤ 50 %). TAS-mortality scale complemented by the ROC analysis program (AuROC = 0.83; p < 0.001), showed higher sensitivity, specificity and efficacy in comparison with traditional scales APACHE-IV & Mortality Rate, SOFA & Mortality Rate, Scale of Assessment of Vital System (ShOVS).Conclusion. The proposed Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportation associated mortality (TAS-Mortality) scale have better sensitivity, efficiency and ROC-curve than traditional scales, and therefore could be actively recommended to describe the state of emergency victims or critical patients of all age categories, as well as to make decisions regarding medical evacuation, including ECMO and medical jets.","PeriodicalId":36526,"journal":{"name":"Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportation associated mortality (TAS–mortality) critical patients and patients with emergency-related injuries\",\"authors\":\"D. Shelukhin, S. Aleksanin, V. Rybnikov, A. I. Pavlov\",\"doi\":\"10.25016/2541-7487-2023-0-1-78-86\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Relevance. The existing traditional tools (scales) to assess severity of the patient’s condition and death probability do not take into account a set of crucial parameters for the upcoming medical evacuation.The objective is to develop the Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportability-associated mortality (TAS-mortality) tool to evaluate critical patients and patients injured in emergency situations (ES) of all age groups at different stages of medical evacuation using all types of transportation, followed by inpatient treatment.Methods. In total, we analyzed N=217 clinical cases of medical evacuation using different types of transportation in combination with either traditional intensive care (n=149, control group) or ECMO (n=68, trial group) due to refractory respiratory and/or circulatory insufficiency in all age groups. Once the patients embarked on medical evacuation, they were immediately split in groups to assess their condition while transportation and within the next 72 hours (associated period). A new scale (formula) to assess patient’s transportability and probability of mortality, including in the ECMO setting, was formulated based on the following statistical techniques: one-factor forecasting, risk classes of disorder development and logistic regression modeling applied to such target indicators as “death”, “transportation negative impact on patient’s condition” and other factors. Most significant factors were further embedded in the new transportability and probability of death assessment scale (formula).Results and discussion. The Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) was developed using logistic regression model measuring the impact of transportation on the patient’s condition: y = exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7) / 1+ exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7), where: у – transportability assessment of patient; x1 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110); x2 (Age ≥ 65 years); x3 (VIS ≥ 4 points); x4 (PaCO2 ≥ 55 mm Hg); x5 (SvO2 ≤ 60 %); x6 (HR∙ ≥ 127 beats per minute); x7 (ECMO application). Depending on the evacuation conditions, correction factors were as follows: x1 – 0.75 if the patient is to be transported by plane, x6 – 0.65 if the patient’s body weight is less than 10 kg. The results were translated into a 100-point scoring system: patients scoring up to 30 points were available for evacuation; 30 to 70 indicated evacuation to be performed in ongoing intensive care setting; over 70 indicated impossibility of evacuation until the patient is stabilized and subcompensated. We also developed the new TAS-mortality 100-point scale: y = exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10,) / 1+ exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10), where: y – probability of outcome – death; x1 (lactate ≥ 8 mmol/L), x2 (age ≥ 65 лет), x3 (creatinine ≥ 300 µmol/L), x4 (duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 7 days), x5 (bilirubin ≥ 102 µmol/L), x6 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110), x7 (CPR), F8 (VIS ≥ 4 points), x9 (PaCO2 ≥ 70 mm Hg), x10 (SvO2 ≤ 50 %). TAS-mortality scale complemented by the ROC analysis program (AuROC = 0.83; p < 0.001), showed higher sensitivity, specificity and efficacy in comparison with traditional scales APACHE-IV & Mortality Rate, SOFA & Mortality Rate, Scale of Assessment of Vital System (ShOVS).Conclusion. The proposed Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportation associated mortality (TAS-Mortality) scale have better sensitivity, efficiency and ROC-curve than traditional scales, and therefore could be actively recommended to describe the state of emergency victims or critical patients of all age categories, as well as to make decisions regarding medical evacuation, including ECMO and medical jets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25016/2541-7487-2023-0-1-78-86\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25016/2541-7487-2023-0-1-78-86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

的相关性。评估病人病情严重程度和死亡概率的现有传统工具(量表)没有考虑到即将进行的医疗后送的一套关键参数。目的是制定可运输性评估量表(TAS)和可运输性相关死亡率(TAS-死亡率)工具,以评估使用各种运输方式进行医疗后送不同阶段的所有年龄组危重患者和急诊情况下受伤患者(ES),然后进行住院治疗。我们总共分析了N=217例因难治性呼吸和/或循环功能不全而采用不同运输方式联合传统重症监护(N= 149,对照组)或ECMO (N= 68,试验组)的临床病例。一旦病人开始医疗后送,他们立即被分成小组,以评估他们在运输过程中以及在接下来的72小时(相关期间)内的情况。基于以下统计技术:单因素预测、障碍发展风险等级、logistic回归模型应用于“死亡”、“运输对患者病情的负面影响”等目标指标,制定了新的评估患者可转移性和死亡概率的量表(公式)。最重要的因素进一步嵌入到新的可运输性和死亡概率评估量表(公式)中。结果和讨论。采用logistic回归模型制定了可运输性评估量表(TAS),测量运输对患者病情的影响:y = exp(37∙x1 + 6∙x2 + 20∙x3 +16∙x4 + 21∙x5 + 27∙x7) / 1+ exp(37∙x1 + 6∙x2 + 20∙x3 +16∙x4 + 21∙x5 + 27∙x7),其中:x1 (PaO2/FiO2≤110);x2(年龄≥65岁);x3 (VIS≥4分);x4 (PaCO2≥55 mm Hg);x5 (SvO2≤60%);x6 (HR∙≥127次/分钟);x7 (ECMO申请)。根据疏散条件的不同,校正系数为:乘飞机运送患者x1 - 0.75,体重小于10kg患者x6 - 0.65。结果被转化为一个100分的评分系统:得分高达30分的患者可以撤离;30至70人表示在持续的重症监护环境中需要进行疏散;超过70名患者表示在患者稳定和代偿不足之前不可能撤离。我们还开发了新的死亡百分表:y = exp(29∙x1 + 16∙x2 + 11∙x3 + 10∙x4 + 9∙x5 + 7∙x6 + 7∙x7 + 6∙x8 + 4∙x9 + 1∙x10,) / 1+ exp(29∙x1 + 16∙x2 + 11∙x3 + 10∙x4 + 9∙x5 + 7∙x6 + 7∙x7 + 6∙x8 + 4∙x9 + 1∙x10),其中:y -结果概率-死亡;x1(乳酸≥8mmol /L), x2(年龄≥65 лет), x3(肌酐≥300µmol/L), x4(机械通气持续时间≥7天),x5(胆红素≥102µmol/L), x6 (PaO2/FiO2≤110),x7 (CPR), F8 (VIS≥4分),x9 (PaCO2≥70 mm Hg), x10 (SvO2≤50%)。tas -死亡率量表辅以ROC分析程序(AuROC = 0.83;p < 0.001),与传统量表APACHE-IV & Mortality Rate、SOFA & Mortality Rate、生命系统评估量表(ShOVS)相比,具有更高的敏感性、特异性和有效性。所提出的可运输性评估量表(TAS)和运输相关死亡率(TAS- mortality)量表比传统量表具有更好的灵敏度、效率和roc曲线,因此可以积极推荐用于描述所有年龄段的紧急受害者或危重患者的状态,以及对医疗后送(包括ECMO和医疗飞机)的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportation associated mortality (TAS–mortality) critical patients and patients with emergency-related injuries
Relevance. The existing traditional tools (scales) to assess severity of the patient’s condition and death probability do not take into account a set of crucial parameters for the upcoming medical evacuation.The objective is to develop the Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportability-associated mortality (TAS-mortality) tool to evaluate critical patients and patients injured in emergency situations (ES) of all age groups at different stages of medical evacuation using all types of transportation, followed by inpatient treatment.Methods. In total, we analyzed N=217 clinical cases of medical evacuation using different types of transportation in combination with either traditional intensive care (n=149, control group) or ECMO (n=68, trial group) due to refractory respiratory and/or circulatory insufficiency in all age groups. Once the patients embarked on medical evacuation, they were immediately split in groups to assess their condition while transportation and within the next 72 hours (associated period). A new scale (formula) to assess patient’s transportability and probability of mortality, including in the ECMO setting, was formulated based on the following statistical techniques: one-factor forecasting, risk classes of disorder development and logistic regression modeling applied to such target indicators as “death”, “transportation negative impact on patient’s condition” and other factors. Most significant factors were further embedded in the new transportability and probability of death assessment scale (formula).Results and discussion. The Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) was developed using logistic regression model measuring the impact of transportation on the patient’s condition: y = exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7) / 1+ exp(37∙ x1 + 6∙ x2 + 20∙ x3 +16∙ x4 + 21∙ x5 + 27∙ x6 – 27∙ x7), where: у – transportability assessment of patient; x1 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110); x2 (Age ≥ 65 years); x3 (VIS ≥ 4 points); x4 (PaCO2 ≥ 55 mm Hg); x5 (SvO2 ≤ 60 %); x6 (HR∙ ≥ 127 beats per minute); x7 (ECMO application). Depending on the evacuation conditions, correction factors were as follows: x1 – 0.75 if the patient is to be transported by plane, x6 – 0.65 if the patient’s body weight is less than 10 kg. The results were translated into a 100-point scoring system: patients scoring up to 30 points were available for evacuation; 30 to 70 indicated evacuation to be performed in ongoing intensive care setting; over 70 indicated impossibility of evacuation until the patient is stabilized and subcompensated. We also developed the new TAS-mortality 100-point scale: y = exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10,) / 1+ exp(29∙ x1 + 16∙ x2 + 11∙ x3 + 10∙ x4 + 9∙ x5 + 7∙ x6 + 7∙ x7 + 6∙ x8 + 4∙ x9 + 1∙ x10), where: y – probability of outcome – death; x1 (lactate ≥ 8 mmol/L), x2 (age ≥ 65 лет), x3 (creatinine ≥ 300 µmol/L), x4 (duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 7 days), x5 (bilirubin ≥ 102 µmol/L), x6 (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 110), x7 (CPR), F8 (VIS ≥ 4 points), x9 (PaCO2 ≥ 70 mm Hg), x10 (SvO2 ≤ 50 %). TAS-mortality scale complemented by the ROC analysis program (AuROC = 0.83; p < 0.001), showed higher sensitivity, specificity and efficacy in comparison with traditional scales APACHE-IV & Mortality Rate, SOFA & Mortality Rate, Scale of Assessment of Vital System (ShOVS).Conclusion. The proposed Transportability Assessment Scale (TAS) and transportation associated mortality (TAS-Mortality) scale have better sensitivity, efficiency and ROC-curve than traditional scales, and therefore could be actively recommended to describe the state of emergency victims or critical patients of all age categories, as well as to make decisions regarding medical evacuation, including ECMO and medical jets.
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Index of articles of journal “Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Problems of Safety in Emergency Situations” 2022 Aspects of eliminating medical and sanitary consequences of the flood disaster in the Republic of Crimea on June 17–18, 2021 А case of mass vaccination against a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) at a large construction site Extensive traumatic detachment of soft tissue after accident: clinical experience of a multidisciplinary hospital Publicly available online course as a promising tool for teaching and promoting first aid skills in cardiac arrest
×
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