Key result
A model incorporating heart rate variability and complexity predicted the need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.83).
Why the study?
The authors sought to develop a model incorporating heart rate variability and heart rate complexity to predict the need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients within 24 hours of emergency department presentation.
Does a model incorporating HRV and HRC predict the need for life-saving interventions in adult trauma patients?
Observational (n=225)
No
Does a model incorporating HRV and HRC predict the need for life-saving interventions in adult trauma patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.83)
A predictive model incorporating heart rate variability and complexity along with Glasgow Coma Scale can predict the need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients better than standard triage scores.
HRV/HRC model may improve early LSI prediction in trauma; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
Background Triage trauma scores are utilised to determine patient disposition, interventions and prognostication in the care of trauma patients. Heart rate variability (HRV) and heart rate complexity (HRC) reflect the autonomic nervous system and are derived from electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis. In this study, we aimed to develop a model incorporating HRV and HRC, to predict the need for life-saving interventions (LSI) in trauma patients, within 24 h of emergency department presentation. Methods We included adult trauma patients (≥ 18 years of age) presenting at the emergency department of Singapore General Hospital between October 2014 and October 2015. We excluded patients who had non-sinus rhythms and larger proportions of artefacts and/or ectopics in ECG analysis. We obtained patient demographics, laboratory results, vital signs and outcomes from electronic health records. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses for predictive model building. Results Two hundred and twenty-five patients met inclusion criteria, in which 49 patients required LSIs. The LSI group had a higher proportion of deaths (10, 20.41% vs 1, 0.57%, p < 0.001). In the LSI group, the mean of detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA)-α1 (1.24 vs 1.12, p = 0.045) and the median of DFA-α2 (1.09 vs 1.00, p = 0.027) were significantly higher. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis determined that a lower Glasgow Coma Scale, a higher DFA-α1 and higher DFA-α2 were independent predictors of requiring LSIs. The area under the curve (AUC) for our model (0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.83) was higher than other scoring systems and selected vital signs. Conclusions An HRV/HRC model outperforms other triage trauma scores and selected vital signs in predicting the need for LSIs but needs to be validated in larger patient populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Trauma (n=225). Heart rate variability (HRV) and heart rate complexity (HRC) model vs. Other triage trauma scores and selected vital signs was evaluated on Need for life-saving interventions (LSI) within 24 h (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.83). A model incorporating heart rate variability and complexity predicted the need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.83).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: