Validating the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in Different Populations: ISS Predicts Mortality Better Among Hispanics and Females

Introduction

The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the most commonly used measure of injury severity. The score has been shown to have excellent predictive capability for trauma mortality and has been validated in multiple data sets. However, the score has never been tested to see if its discriminatory ability is affected by differences in race and gender.

Objective

This study is aimed at validating the ISS in men and women and in three different race/ethnic groups using a nationwide database.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients age 18–64 y in the National Trauma Data Bank 7.0 with blunt trauma was performed. ISS was categorized as mild (<9,) moderate (9–15), severe (16–25), and profound (>25). Logistic regression was done to measure the relative odds of mortality associated with a change in ISS categories. The discriminatory ability was compared using the receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC). A P value testing the equality of the ROC curves was calculated. Age stratified analyses were also conducted.

Results

A total of 872,102 patients had complete data for the analysis on ethnicity, while 763,549 patients were included in the gender analysis. The overall mortality rate was 3.7%. ROC in Whites was 0.8617, in Blacks 0.8586, and in Hispanics 0.8869. Hispanics have a statistically significant higher ROC (P value < 0.001). Similar results were observed within each age category. ROC curves were also significantly higher in females than in males.

Conclusion

The ISS possesses excellent discriminatory ability in all populations as indicated by the high ROCs.

Introduction

Trauma is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young adults [1]. In 2006, unintentional injury accounted for over 52,000 deaths among patients aged between one and 45 y in the United States [2]. A detailed understanding of two major factors is essential to predict clinical outcomes post-trauma: the severity of injury 3, 4, 5 and the patient's physiologic reserve [6]. A patient's reserve is a composite measure of the influence of age, gender, co-morbidities, insurance, complications, and other unmeasured factors that altogether explain why each patient is different from the other. This paper focuses on the measurement of injury severity in different populations and how this predicts outcomes.

Several scoring methods are used to assess injury severity; they are divided into anatomic, physiologic, and combined scoring systems. Anatomic systems include ISS, New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS). Examples of physiologic scores are the Glascow Coma Score (GCS) and Revised Trauma Score (RTS). The ASCOT (A Severity Characterization of Trauma) and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS) are examples of combined scoring systems 1, 3, 6, 7, 8.The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is the foremost and gold standard test for assessing injury severity 11, 26. It was developed to measure the severity of injury based on injury characteristics [3]. The ISS has been used to account for patient case mix in trauma care evaluation, identifying comparable populations in outcomes research, and could be used in benchmarking and audit purposes 3, 4, 5. Developed in 1974 by Baker et al., the ISS is derived from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3, 4. The AIS score is on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 6; the body is categorized into six distinct regions, and each region is given an AIS score. The ISS is obtained by taking the sum of the squares of the AIS values of the three most severely injured regions of the body. The new methods of scoring listed above were mostly developed to correct the perceived inadequacies of the ISS. These include its failure to account for multiple severe injuries in the same region, underestimation of injury severity in penetrating injuries, and the need for MRI or angiography to give accurate ISS scores in some cases 8, 9, 10. Despite these limitations, the ISS remains the most commonly used scoring system in trauma research [11].

ISS has been shown to have excellent predictive capability for trauma mortality and has been validated in different datasets 3, 4, 5. But despite its prevalent use, it is unknown if its discriminatory properties are affected by race and gender. This becomes especially important with recent evidence showing ethnic and gender differences in mortality after trauma. Haider et al. demonstrated that Black and Hispanic race was independently associated with mortality after trauma [27]. George et al. showed that females were associated with reduced risk of mortality after trauma. It is important to delineate if these results are due to actual race and gender differences or if they are due to differential discriminatory ability of the ISS in different populations [28]. This study aims to assess the discriminatory ability of the ISS in different populations, and so validate its use in all ethnic and gender groups.