3.9 Article

Admission Base Deficit as a Long-Term Prognostic Factor in Severe Pediatric Trauma Patients

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31819db828

关键词

Children; Trauma; Base deficit; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Base deficit (BD) is a prognostic tool that correlates with trauma scores and mortality in adult trauma patients. Retrospective studies have shown that admission BD more than 8 mmol/L is associated with ail increased risk of mortality. This is the first prospective European study aimed at evaluating the prognostic value of admission BD in traumatized children. Methods: One hundred severely traumatized children were included if all arterial BD had been calculated on arrival in the trauma room of a university hospital. Epidemiologic, medical, and biological data (including admission BD and lactates concentration) were recorded and compared using a univariate analysis. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were Outcome on discharge and at 6 months. Cutoff values for BD or lactates regarding outcomes were determined using receiver operating characteristic Curves if these data had been isolated on multivariate analysis (p < 0.05). Results: Sixty-eight boys and 32 girls, aged 6.7 years, were enrolled from March 2003 to December 2005, mainly after road traffic accidents. Twenty-two died at the hospital, 34 children and 5 1 children were classified as having a good outcome oil hospital discharge and 6 months later, respectively. After the multivariate procedure and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, admission lactates more than 2.94 mmol/L and admission BD more than 5 mEq/L were independent risk factors for mortality (odds ratio 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.3-4.6]) and poor outcome at 6 months (odds ratio 2.5 [95% confidence interval 1.13-5.5]), respectively. Discussion: BD could be used to predict the long-term morbidity and may not be related to morbidity and mortality at discharge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据