RESUMO
Objective To investigate the value of the reverse shock index multiplied by GlasgowComa scale score (rSIG) and serum translocator protein 18000 in the prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Methods One hundred and fifteen patients with severe traumatic brain injury were divided into the survival group and death group. SPSS 20.0 software was used to compare the vital signs, rSIG and TSPO between the two groups, and the relationship between rSIG and TSPO was analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to predict the value of rSIG and TSPO and their combination in the prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. According to the best cut-off value of rSIG and TSPO of ROC curve, patients were divided into the rSIG ≤ 14.8 group and rSIG>14.8 group, and the TSPO ≤ 1.84 ng/mL group and TSPO>1.84 ng/mL group, and the mortality between the groups was compared. Results In 115 patients, rSIG of the survival group was significantly higher than that of the death group, and TSPO was significantly lower than that of the death group [(10.5±4.4) vs. (6.4±4.1), 1.0(0.3,1.9) ng/mL vs.3.4 (2.0, 4.6) ng/mL, P<0.01]. The ability of rSIG combined with TSPO to forecast the mortality of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is not superior to the predictive power of these two indicators alone. The serum TSPO value and 28-day mortality in the rSIG > 4.15 group were significantly higher than those in the rSIG ≤ 4.15 group. The rSIG value of the TSPO ≤ 1.84 ng/mL group was significantly higher than that of the TSPO>1.84 ng/mL group; the 28-day mortality was significantly lower than that in the TSPO>1.84 ng/mL group. The rSIG value was negatively correlated with serum TSPO value (r=-0.611, P<0.01). Conclusions rSIG value and serum TSPO value have good predictive value for the prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury, and can provide certain guiding significance in clinical practice.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The shock index (SI), as a trauma triage tool, is a capable clinical indicator of hemodynamic instability and hypovolemic shock, but the conception of SI is contradictory to shock. The reverse shock index (RSI) was introduced recently, but its utility has not been sufficiently proven. METHODS: This study examined the RSI utility by evaluating the procedures performed at an emergency department (ED) and the associated outcomes when the RSI is used alone or in combination with the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS). This was a retrospective study conducted by including data of 4,789 adult trauma patients for a year. The clinical variables, procedures performed on patients, and outcomes were investigated. The median RSI was 0.9 in the RSI < 1 group. RESULTS: Patients in the RSI < 1 group had a higher odds of requiring procedures at the ED and for experiencing worse outcomes: intubation (odds ratio [OR], 5.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3–13.1; P < 0.001), chest tube insertion (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 0.4–111.84; P < 0.001), use of emergency drugs (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.5–8.5; P < 0.001), circulatory support (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.3–12.9; P < 0.001), intensive care unit admission (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8–6.8; P < 0.001), and mortality during the ED stay (OR, 20.4; 95% CI, 5.5–75.7; P < 0.001). In the group with KTAS 1–3, trends similar to those in the RSI < 1 group were observed. Patients with RSI < 1 had more severe injuries and poorer outcomes than those with RSI≥1, regardless of whether the RSI was used alone or in combination with KTAS. CONCLUSION: RSI can provide an appropriate triage with concurrent KTAS use.