Comparison the Ability of Quantitative Trauma Severity Assessment Methods Based On GAP, RTS, and ISS Criteria in Determining the Prognosis of Accidental Patients

To compare the ability of quantitative trauma severity assessment methods based on Glasgow comascale, age, and arterial pressure (GAP), revised trauma score (RTS), and injury severity score (ISS) criteria indetermining the prognosis of accidental patients. This cross-sectional study was performed on random patients referred to Imam Khomeini Hospitalin Urmia from March 20, 2020 to September 21, 2020. The data were obtained by using a checklist includesitems such as age, sex, respiration rate, oxygen saturation level, pulse rate, primary blood pressure, initialGlascow coma scale (GCS), patient outcome and injury to different parts of body. After collecting the data, itwas entered into SPSS 18 and analyzed with the descriptive and analytical statistics include an independentt-test and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curves. Out of 1930 studied patients, 365 (18.9%) were women and 1565 (81.1%) were men. The mean age ofpatients was 37.05±17.11 years and women were significantly older than men. The mortality rate was 4.8% andwas significantly more in men compared to women. The mean blood pressure, GCS and oxygen saturation levelwere lower in deceased patients. The mean GAP, ISS and RTS values were 23.13±2.69, 4.07±3.82, 7.72±0.52,respectively. The mean values of GAP and RTS were significantly low in deceased patients whereas the meanISS value was significantly high in the deceased patients. The Area under the curve (AUS) for ISS was greaterthan the other two scoring systems. The findings of the current study showed that all three systems were adequately efficient toprognoses the final outcome in multi-trauma patients but the ISS measure was better than the other two criteria.