Comparative analysis of MGAP, GAP, and RISC2 as predictors of patient outcome and emergency interventional need in emergency room treatment of the injured.

purposeLittle is known about the capabilities of triage and risk scores to predict the outcomes of injured patients, other than mortality, or to determine the need for trauma center resources.

methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively gathered monocenter data on consecutively admitted adult emergency room trauma patients. For each patient, the GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Pressure), MGAP (mechanism + GAP) scores and the revised injury severity classification 2 (RISC2) were calculated. The predictive performance of these scores was compared for the assessment of trauma severity, hospital resource need and early patient outcomes (area under the receiver operator characteristics, AUROC).

results2112 patients were evaluated [mean age 49.1 years; Injury Severity Score (ISS) 9.5]. GAP, MGAP, and RISC2 worked best at predicting mortality (AUROC 93.2, 93.5 and 96.1%, respectively). Other endpoints such as ISS > 15, emergency interventions, disability status, and return-not-home were predicted less precisely by these three scores, better by RISC2 (AUROC range 66.2-88.8%) than by (M)GAP-scores (55.2-84.1%), except for preclinical interventions. Over- and undertriage rates for the (M)GAP scores varied between 27.5-53.4% and 10.4-30%, respectively.

conclusionThe almost comparable precision of the three risk scores in the prediction of outcome or interventional need following trauma, and the fact, that the RISC2 can only be calculated following extensive diagnostics, favor earlier applicable (M)GAP scoring in the emergency setting. Overall, due to its easier use, the GAP appears to be the most preferable for the early assessment and triage of the injured in a trauma setting based on this European trauma center experience (NCT02165137).