Skip to main content
Log in

Modifiziertes McPeek-Punkte-System bei Polytraumapatienten

Prospektive Evaluierung eines Punktesystems zur Erfassung von Verlaufsfaktoren

Modified McPeek score in multiple trauma patients

Prospective evaluation of a points system for recording follow-up factors

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Anaesthesist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Bekannte Traumapunktesysteme sagen häufig nur die Letalität von Traumapatienten voraus. Für bestimmte wissenschaftliche und epidemiologische Fragestellungen ist diese Information allein jedoch nicht ausreichend, und quantifizierbare Verlaufsparameter wären von Interesse und Bedeutung.

Ziel der Arbeit

In dieser Studie sollte prospektiv untersucht werden, ob das modifizierte McPeek-Punkte-System, das retrospektiv bereits an polytraumatisierten Patienten erfolgreich adaptiert wurde, zur Anwendung kommen kann.

Material und Methoden

In diese prospektive, monozentrische Studie an der Universitätsklinik Innsbruck wurden zwischen Dezember 2008 und November 2010 polytraumatisierte Patienten (≥ 18 Jahre) mit einem Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 17 aufgenommen. Das McPeek-Punkte-System wurde entsprechend der Modifikation angewendet, und die Korrelation, ordinale Regression und grafische Analyse wurden für die statistische Auswertung durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 223 Patienten aufgenommen (Ø ISS 31,2, Ø Alter 47,2 Jahre). Auf Basis der Gesamtpopulation wurde der beobachtete McPeek-Wert individuell zugeordnet (Median 4,0). Der Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) korrelierte mit 0,74 (p < 0,0001) gut mit dem beobachteten McPeek, und die Regression lieferte gute Resultate für den vorhergesagten McPeek-Wert (Pseudo-R2 = 0,944, p < 0,0001). Der residuelle McPeek-Wert (beobachteter minus vorhergesagter McPeek) konnte benutzt werden, um den Einfluss des Blutzuckerspiegels bei Einlieferung und den Einfluss von Kopfverletzungen auf den klinischen Verlauf darzustellen.

Schlussfolgerung

Das modifizierte McPeek-Punkte-System ist bei polytraumatisierten Patienten zur Beurteilung des klinischen Verlaufs für wissenschaftliche Zwecke oder für epidemiologische Fragestellungen anwendbar. Hauptvorteil ist die Quantifizierbarkeit des Verlaufs, unabhängig von regionalen oder nationalen Gegebenheiten.

Abstract

Background

Many commonly available trauma scores predict mortality, but to evaluate the success of a certain therapy or for difficult scientific and epidemiological purposes this may be insufficient in the face of improved survival rates. For outcome analysis of multiple trauma patients, the extent of medical resources needed could be an additional outcome measurement. McPeek et al. developed a potential scoring system for elective surgery patients, which was recently modified for multiple trauma patients.

Aim

The current study investigated if the McPeek score could be prospectively used in multiple trauma patients and whether it could become an additional helpful tool in outcome assessment. Applicability was assessed by practical examples.

Material and methods

In this prospective single-centre study at the University Hospital of Innsbruck, Austria, between December 2008 and November 2010 multiple trauma patients (≥ 18 years) with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 17 were enrolled. Besides demographic data, prehospital vital parameters and diagnoses, all diagnoses from the trauma, mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital were recorded. The commonly used trauma scores ISS, revised trauma score (RTS), a severity characterization of trauma (ASCOT) and trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) were applied and an observed McPeek score was allocated following end of hospitalization. The McPeek scoring system was used according to the latest modifications. A correlation between trauma scores and the McPeek score was performed. The McPeek score was then predicted by a common trauma score using ordinal regression with the polytomous universal model (PLUM method). By subtracting the predicted from the observed McPeek scores the residual McPeek value was calculated and used for practical examples of outcome analysis with the McPeek scoring system.

Results

Out of 406 identified multiple trauma patients during the study phase, 183 had to be excluded due to missing data (mainly prehospital or following transfer). A total of 223 patients (mean ISS 31.2, mean age 47.2 years) were enrolled and assigned to the population-based observed McPeek score (median 4.0). Correlation coefficients were Glasgow coma scale (GCS) 0.59, ISS 0.62, RTS 0.65, TRISS 0.74 and ASCOT 0.77 (p < 0.0001). The TRISS predicted the McPeek score best in ordinal regression (pseudo-R2 = 0.944, p < 0.0001). The residual McPeek score (observed minus predicted) was used to illustrate the influence of the blood glucose level on admission and the influence of head injury on outcome of multiple injury patients in detail.

Conclusion

The modified McPeek score is applicable to multiple trauma patients to assess outcome for scientific or epidemiological purposes. Its main advantage is that it quantifies outcome independently of regional or national circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB (1974) The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14:187–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS (1987) Evaluating trauma care: the TRISS method. Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score. J Trauma 27:370–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS et al (1989) A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma 29:623–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ et al (1990) A new characterization of injury severity. J Trauma 30:539–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neugebauer E, Bouillon B, Bullinger M, Wood-Dauphinée S (2002) Quality of life after multiple trauma-summary and recommendations of the consensus conference. Restor Neurol Neurosci 20:161–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McPeek B, Gasko M, Mosteller F (1986) Measuring outcome from anesthesia and operation. Theor Surg 1:2–9

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kreutziger J, Vollbach F, Wenzel V et al (2014) Das McPeek-Punktesystem für Polytrauma-Patienten. Die Modifikation des McPeek-Punktesystems als neue Methodik zur Verlaufsbeurteilung polytraumatisierter Patienen. Notfall Rettungsmed (im Druck)

  8. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (1990), Update 2005. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. http://www.carcrash.org

  9. Kreutziger J, Wenzel V, Kurz A, Constantinescu MA (2009) Admission blood glucose is an independent predictive factor for hospital mortality in polytraumatised patients. Intensive Care Med 35:1234–1239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kreutziger J, Schlaepfer J, Wenzel V, Constantinescu MA (2009) The role of admission blood glucose in outcome prediction of surviving patients with multiple injuries. J Trauma 67:704–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jenicek M (1995) Prognosis. Studies of disease course and outcome. In: Jenicek M (Hrsg) Epidemiology, the logic of modern medicine. EPIMED, New Haven, S 241–266

  12. Lorenz W, Duda D, Dick W et al (1994) The Trial Group Mainz/Marburg. Incidence and clinical importance of perioperative histamine release: randomised study of volume loading and antihistamines after induction of anaesthesia. Lancet 343:933–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ludwig K, Patel K, Wilhelm L, Bernhardt J (2002) Prospective study on patients outcome following laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomie. Zentralbl Chir 127:41–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nies C, Krack W, Lorenz W et al (1997) Histamine release in conventional vs minimally invasive surgery: results of a randomised trial in acute cholecystitis. Inflamm Res 46:83–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bauhofer A, Lorenz W, Koller M, Torossian A (2006) Evaluation of the McPeek postoperative outcome score in three trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg 39:418–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bauhofer A, Plaul U, Torossian A et al (2007) Perioperative prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in high-risk colorectal cancer patients for an improved recovery: a randomized, controlled trial. Surgery 41:501–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. S. Mathis, S. Kellermann, S. Schmid, H. Mutschlechner, H. Raab, V. Wenzel, R. El Attal und J. Kreutziger geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Die Untersuchung wurde ausschließlich aus Klinikressourcen finanziert.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Kreutziger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mathis, S., Kellermann, S., Schmid, S. et al. Modifiziertes McPeek-Punkte-System bei Polytraumapatienten. Anaesthesist 63, 387–393 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-014-2315-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-014-2315-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation