Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP): A new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients*

Sartorius, Danielle Marie; Manach, Yannick Le; David, Jean-Stéphane; Rancurel, E.; Smaïl, Nadia; Thicoïpé, M.; Wiel, É.; Ricard-Hibon, A.; Berthier, F.; Gueugniaud, Pierre‐Yves; Riou, Bruno

doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181cc4a67

Cited by 202 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…RTS values ranged from 1.76-7.84, with a median value of 6.90 (IQR 5.97-7.84). KTS values ranged from 9 to 16 with a median value of 14 (IQR [13][14][15]. MGAP values ranged from 10 to 29, with a median value of 23 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MGAP values ranged from 10 to 29, with a median value of 23 . GAP values ranged from 6 to 24, with a median value of 19 (IQR [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other data including disposition and in-hospital mortality were recorded during the hospital stay. [11,12,14,15,17].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The acronym MGAP stands for ''mechanism (of injury), GCS, age, (systolic blood) pressure,'' and the MGAP score differs from RTS by including patient age and injury mechanism but excluding respiratory rate. The MGAP score was initially developed and validated in France as a pre-hospital triage score to 30-day mortality [15]. It has also been shown to be effective in predicting prolonged ICU stay and massive haemorrhage in a European cohort [16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai

Laytin

Kumar

Juillard

et al. 2015

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MGAP values ranged from 10 to 29, with a median value of 23 . GAP values ranged from 6 to 24, with a median value of 19 (IQR [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other data including disposition and in-hospital mortality were recorded during the hospital stay. [11,12,14,15,17].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai

Laytin

Kumar

Juillard

et al. 2015

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the severity scores did not appear to be different between patients with or without etomidate, and etomidate was associated with HAP in a multivariate analysis. However, the use of other trauma severity scores [41] or of generalist severity scores [42] with better prognostic values may have provided other information. Second, we used a more liberal CIRCI definition than the consensus statement, which was not available at the beginning of the study in 2006 (basal cortisolemia \10 vs. 15 lg/dL) [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Etomidate increases susceptibility to pneumonia in trauma patients

Asehnoune

Mahé²,

Séguin

et al. 2012

Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trauma models to identify major trauma and mortality in the prehospital setting

Sewalt

Venema

Wiegers

et al. 2019

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients with major trauma might benefit from treatment in a trauma centre, but early identification of major trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) over 15) remains difficult. The aim of this study was to undertake an external validation of existing prognostic models for injured patients to assess their ability to predict mortality and major trauma in the prehospital setting. Methods Prognostic models were identified through a systematic literature search up to October 2017. Injured patients transported by Emergency Medical Services to an English hospital from the Trauma Audit and Research Network between 2013 and 2016 were included. Outcome measures were major trauma (ISS over 15) and in‐hospital mortality. The performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (concordance index, C‐statistic) and net benefit to assess the clinical usefulness. Results A total of 154 476 patients were included to validate six previously proposed prediction models. Discriminative ability ranged from a C‐statistic value of 0·602 (95 per cent c.i. 0·596 to 0·608) for the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Arterial Pressure model to 0·793 (0·789 to 0·797) for the modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (mREMS) in predicting in‐hospital mortality (11 882 patients). Major trauma was identified in 52 818 patients, with discrimination from a C‐statistic value of 0·589 (0·586 to 0·592) for mREMS to 0·735 (0·733 to 0·737) for the Kampala Trauma Score in predicting major trauma. None of the prediction models met acceptable undertriage and overtriage rates. Conclusion Currently available prehospital trauma models perform reasonably in predicting in‐hospital mortality, but are inadequate in identifying patients with major trauma. Future research should focus on which patients would benefit from treatment in a major trauma centre.

show abstract

Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP): A new simple prehospital triage score to predict mortality in trauma patients*

Abstract: The MGAP score can accurately predict in-hospital death in trauma patients.

Cited by 202 publications

References 32 publications

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai

Etomidate increases susceptibility to pneumonia in trauma patients

Trauma models to identify major trauma and mortality in the prehospital setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About