New Injury Severity Score and Trauma Injury Severity Score are superior in predicting trauma mortality

Abstract

Background: Trauma scores are used to give clinicians appropriate quantitative context in making decisions. Studies show that anatomical trauma scores predicted intensive care unit admission better, while physiological trauma scores predicted mortality better. We hypothesize that trauma scores have a hierarchy of efficacies at predicting mortality and operative decision making.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of our trauma patient database at a level 1 trauma center from 2016 to 2020 and calculated the following trauma scores: Glasgow Coma Scale, Revised Trauma Score, Trauma Injury Severity Score, Injury Severity Score, Shock Index, and New Trauma Injury Severity Score (NISS). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of trauma scores for predicting mortality.

Results: A total of 738 patients were included (mean ± SD age, 35.7 ± 15.6 years). Area under the curve (AUC) results from the DeLong test showed that NISS predicted mortality the best compared with other trauma scores. New Trauma Injury Severity Score was superior in predicting mortality for penetrating trauma (AUC, 0.86 ± 0.02; p < 0.001) compared with blunt trauma (AUC, 0.73 ± 0.04; p < 0.001). Trauma Injury Severity Score was the best predictor of mortality for patients with gunshot wounds (AUC, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.92; p < 0.001), motor vehicle accidents (AUC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00; p = 0.01), and falls (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; p = 0.007).

Conclusion: New Trauma Injury Severity Score was the best scoring index for predicting mortality in trauma patients, especially for penetrating trauma. Clinicians should consider incorporating other trauma scores, especially NISS and Trauma Injury Severity Score, in determining injury severity and the likelihood of mortality. These scores can help physicians determine the best course of action in patient management.

Level of evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; level IV.