Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
GAP (Glasgow Coma Score - GCS, Age, Arterial Pressure), MGAP (Mechanism of Injury, GCS, Age, Arterial Pressure) and RTS (Revised Trauma Score) as Predictors of Poor Outcomes and Mortality after Injury in the Prehospital Setting Cover

GAP (Glasgow Coma Score - GCS, Age, Arterial Pressure), MGAP (Mechanism of Injury, GCS, Age, Arterial Pressure) and RTS (Revised Trauma Score) as Predictors of Poor Outcomes and Mortality after Injury in the Prehospital Setting

EABR. Experimental and Applied Biomedical Research
AHEAD OF PRINT
By: ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2024
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics of the trauma patients

Clinical parametersStatistical values
Age40.3 ± 17.54
Gender
M188 (65,7%)
F98 (34,3%)
Systolic blood pressure115 ± 23,4
Respiratory rate19,5 ± 8,5
Cause of injury
Motor vehicle accidents132 (46,2%)
Fall90 (31,5%)
Other49 (17,1%)
Violence15 (5,2%)
Mechanism of injury N (%)
Blunt trauma191 (66,8%)
Penetrating trauma95 (33,2%)
GCS score13,54± 1,59
GAP score21,55 ± 2,89
MGAP score24,87± 3,22
RTS score7,85± 2,22
Resuscitation/Emergency
Intervention N (%)
Yes147 (51,6%)
No139 (48,4%)
Intensive Care Unit N (%)
Yes79 (27,8%)
No207 (72,2%)
Operative Treatment
Yes198 (69,2%)
No89 (30,8%)
Mortality at four weeks
Yes56 (19,5%)
No230 (80,5%)
Table 2.

Clinical signs and trauma scores in patients who survived versus those who died

Clinical signsSurvivedDeceasedp
Age38,2 ± 17,2241,5 ± 16.260,021
SBP115,7 ± 18.2888,4 ± 19.73<0,001
RR19,04 ± 3,8514,1 ± 6,67<0,001
Mechanism of injury N (%)
Blunt trauma203 (88,2%)27 (11,2 %)<0,001
Penetrating trauma7 (15,2%)39 (84,8%)<0,001
GCS score13,54± 1,597,76± 3,87<0,001
GAP score22,56 ± 2,9316,21± 4,68<0,001
MGAP score24,98± 3,4518,54± 5,32<0,001
RTS score7,95± 2,554,99± 2,58<0,001
Figure 1.

Trauma scores mean values for the survivors and the deceased

Table 3.

Sensitivity and specificity for GAP, MGAP and RTS scores

ScoresThe cut-off value for predicting mortalitySensitivitySpecificityAUC (95% CI)p
GAP<11,5861000,890 (0,822–0,934)<0,001
MGAP<1894980,869 (0,842–0,945)<0,001
RTS<7,583990,871 (0,854–0,969)<0,001
Figura 2.

AUROC values, sensitivity and specificity for GAP, MGAP and RTS scores

Table 4.

Comparing the AUROC values of GAP, MGAP and RTS scores using the Delong test

GAP/MGAPGAP/RTSMGAP/RTS
p0,280,540,89
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eabr-2024-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2956-2090 (formerly 2335-075X, 2956-0454) | Journal ISSN: 2956-0454 (formerly 1820-8665)
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 27, 2024
Accepted on: Oct 16, 2024
Published on: Dec 17, 2024
Published by: University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Trauma score,
predictor,
trauma patients,
prehospital
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Clinical medicine, other

© 2024 Ivana Stefanovic, Sladjana Andjelic, Danijele Tasic-Uros, Ivana Milivojcević Bevc, Jelena Vuckovic Filipovic, published by University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT
Previous article
Next article