• George A Hazell, A Phill Pearce, Alan E Hepper, and BullAnthony M JAMJCentre for Blast Injury Studies, Imperial College London, London, UK..
• Centre for Blast Injury Studies, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: george.hazell16@imperial.ac.uk.
• Br J Anaesth. 2022 Feb 1; 128 (2): e127-e134.

AbstractInjury scoring systems can be used for triaging, predicting morbidity and mortality, and prognosis in mass casualty incidents. Recent conflicts and civilian incidents have highlighted the unique nature of blast injuries, exposing deficiencies in current scoring systems. Here, we classify and describe deficiencies with current systems used for blast injury. Although current scoring systems highlight survival trends for populations, there are several major limitations. The reliable prediction of mortality on an individual basis is inaccurate. Other limitations include the saturation effect (where scoring systems are unable to discriminate between high injury score individuals), the effect of the overall injury burden, lack of precision in discriminating between mechanisms of injury, and a lack of data underpinning scoring system coefficients. Other factors influence outcomes, including the level of healthcare and the delay between injury and presentation. We recommend that a new score incorporates the severity of injuries with the mechanism of blast injury. This may include refined or additional codes, severity scores, or both, being added to the Abbreviated Injury Scale for high-frequency, blast-specific injuries; weighting for body regions associated with a higher risk for death; and blast-specific trauma coefficients. Finally, the saturation effect (maximum value) should be removed, which would enable the classification of more severe constellations of injury. An early accurate assessment of blast injury may improve management of mass casualty incidents.Copyright © 2021 British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…