Kang Kook Choi

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score as Predictors for Severe Trauma Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Background The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scoring system are widely used for critically ill patients. We evaluated whether APACHE II score and SOFA score predict the outcome for trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods We retrospectively analyzed trauma patients admitted to the ICU in a single trauma center between January 2014 and December 2015. The APACHE II score was figured out based on the data acquired from the first 24 hours of admission; the SOFA score was evaluated based on the first 3 days in the ICU. A total of 241 patients were available for analysis. Injury Severity score, APACHE II score, and SOFA score were evaluated. Results The overall survival rate was 83.4%. The non-survival group had a significantly high APACHE II score (24.1 ± 8.1 vs. 12.3 ± 7.2, P < 0.001) and SOFA score (7.7 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.9, P < 0.001) at admission. SOFA score had the highest areas under the curve (0.904). During the first 3 days, SOFA score remained high in the non-survival group. In the non-survival group, cardiovascular system, neurological system, renal system, and coagulation system scores were significantly higher. Conclusions In ICU trauma patients, both SOFA and APACHE II scores were good predictors of outcome, with the SOFA score being the most effective. In trauma ICU patients, the trauma scoring system should be complemented, recognizing that multi-organ failure is an important factor for mortality.

Comparison of outcomes before and after establishing a regional trauma center and following a protocol to treat blunt splenic injury in South Korea: A retrospective study:

Background: Nonoperative management for hemodynamically stable splenic injury has been accepted as appropriate treatment. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the changes in management and clinical outcomes of splenic injury by introducing a protocol for splenic injury at a newly established regional trauma center. Methods: From January 2005 to December 2016, we reviewed the outcomes of all 257 patients who sustained blunt trauma to the spleen at the first regional trauma center in South Korea. This 11-year period was divided into two intervals, before 1 January 2014 (period I, n = 189 patients) and after 1 January 2014 (period II, n = 68 patients), when the trauma center was established and a formal management protocol was followed for patients with blunt traumatic splenic injuries. Results: The proportion of emergency operations performed for patients with more serious (grades 3–5) splenic injuries was lower in period II than in period I (29% vs 22%, respectively, p < 0.001) whereas the rate of angioembolization was higher (89% vs 39.0%, respectively, p < 0.001). The time to intervention, irrespective of whether emergency operation or angioembolization was performed, was shorter in period II than in period I (312.8 min vs 129 min, respectively, p = 0.001). A greater proportion of patients was managed non-operatively in period II (78% vs 71%), and the non-operative management success rate was higher in period II than it was in period I (100% vs 83%; p = 0.014). Similarly, the splenic salvage rate was higher in period II (78% vs 59%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: After establishing a regional trauma center and introducing a protocol for the management of blunt splenic injuries, the rates of non-operative management and splenic salvage improved significantly. The reasons for this may be multifactorial, being related to the early involvement of a trauma surgeon, expansion of angiographic facilities and resources, and the introduction and application of a protocol for managing blunt splenic injury.