4.4 Article

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) Score Independently Predicts Poor Outcome in Isolated Traumatic Brain Injury

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 110-116

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-017-0410-y

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury; SIRS; Outcome; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome; Trauma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is frequently observed after various types of acute cerebral injury and has been linked to clinical deterioration in non-traumatic brain injury (TBI). SIRS scores have also been shown to be predictive of length of stay and mortality in trauma patients. We aimed to determine the prognostic utility of SIRS present at admission in trauma patients with isolated TBI. This was a 5-year retrospective cohort study of adults (ae18 years) with isolated TBI admitted to a Level II trauma center. The prognostic value of SIRS, total SIRS scores, and each SIRS criterion was examined by I (2) and logistic regression analyses. Of the 330 patients identified, 50 (15.2%) met SIRS criteria. SIRS was significantly associated with poor outcome (P < 0.001). Relative risk of poor outcome was 2.7 times higher in patients with a SIRS score of 2 on admission (P = 0.007) and increased significantly to 6.5 times in patients with a SIRS score of 3 (P = 0.002). Logistic regression demonstrated SIRS and each criterion to be significant independent prognostic factors (SIRS, P = 0.030; body temperature, P = 0.006; tachypnea, P = 0.022, tachycardia P = 0.023). SIRS at admission is an independent predictor of poor outcome in isolated TBI patients. These data demonstrate SIRS to be an important clinical tool that may be used in facilitating prognostication, particularly in elderly trauma patients. Future prospective studies aimed at therapeutic interventions to mitigate SIRS in TBI patients are warranted. Prognostic, Level III.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available