Comparison of on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale with GCS-motor for prediction of 30-day mortality and functional outcomes of patients with trauma in Asia

• Published in: European Journal of Emergency Medicine
• Main Author: Chien Y.-C.; Chiang W.-C.; Chen C.-H.; Sun J.-T.; Jamaluddin S.F.; Tanaka H.; Ma M.H.-M.; Huang E.P.-C.; Lin M.-R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2024
• Online Access: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85191597948&doi=10.1097%2fMEJ.0000000000001110&partnerID=40&md5=cfb6b82eda561d9cce76f5cd814c8bb4

Background and importance This study compared the on-scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the GCS-motor (GCS-M) for predictive accuracy of mortality and severe disability using a large, multicenter population of trauma patients in Asian countries. Objective To compare the ability of the prehospital GCS and GCS-M to predict 30-day mortality and severe disability in trauma patients. Design We used the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study registry to enroll all trauma patients >18 years of age who presented to hospitals via emergency medical services from 1 January 2016 to November 30, 2018. Settings and participants A total of 16,218 patients were included in the analysis of 30-day mortality and 11 653 patients in the analysis of functional outcomes. Outcome measures and analysis The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after injury, and the secondary outcome was severe disability at discharge defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥4. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) were compared between GCS and GCS-M for these outcomes. Patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) were analyzed separately. The predictive discrimination ability of logistic regression models for outcomes (30-day mortality and MRS) between GCS and GCS-M is illustrated using AUROCs. Main results The primary outcome for 30-day mortality was 1.04% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.917 (0.887-0.946) vs. GCS-M:0.907 (0.875-0.938), P = 0.155. The secondary outcome for poor functional outcome (MRS ≥ 4) was 12.4% and the AUROCs and 95% confidence intervals for prediction were GCS: 0.617 (0.597-0.637) vs. GCS-M: 0.613 (0.593-0.633), P = 0.616. The subgroup analyses of patients with and without TBI demonstrated consistent discrimination ability between the GCS and GCS-M. The AUROC values of the GCS vs. GCS-M models for 30-day mortality and poor functional outcome were 0.92 (0.821-1.0) vs. 0.92 (0.824-1.0) (P = 0.64) and 0.75 (0.72-0.78) vs. 0.74 (0.717-0.758) (P = 0.21), respectively. Conclusion In the prehospital setting, on-scene GCS-M was comparable to GCS in predicting 30-day mortality and poor functional outcomes among patients with trauma, whether or not there was a TBI. © 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.