The modified rapid emergency medicine score: A novel trauma triage tool to predict in-hospital mortality

Background: Trauma systems currently rely on imperfect and subjective tools to prioritize responses and resources, thus there is a critical need to develop a more accurate trauma severity score. Our objective was to modify the Rapid Emergency Medicine (REMS) Score for the trauma population and test its accuracy as a predictor of in-hospital mortality when compared to other currently used scores, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) score, and the Shock Index (SI) score. Methods: The two-part study design involved both a modification step and a validation step. The first step incorporated a retrospective analysis of a local trauma database (3680 patients) where three components of REMS were modified to more accurately represent the trauma population. Using clinical judgment and goodness-of-fit tests, systolic blood pressure was substituted for mean arterial pressure, the weighting of age was reduced, and the weighting of Glasgow Coma Scale was increased. The second part comprised validating the new modified REMS (mREMS) score retrospectively on a U.S. National Trauma Databank (NTDB) that included 429,711 patients admitted with trauma in 2012. The discriminate power of mREMS was compared to other trauma scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. Results: Overall the mREMS score with an AUC of 0.967 (95% CI: 0.963-0.971) was demonstrated to be higher than RTS (AUC 0.959 [95% CI: 0.955-0.964]), ISS (AUC 0.780 [95% CI 0.770-0.791]), MGAP (AUC 0.964 [95% CI: 0.959-0.968]), and SI (AUC 0.670 [95% CI: 0.650-0.690]) in predicting in-hospital mortality on the NTDB. Conclusion: In the trauma population, mREMS is an accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality, outperforming other used scores. Simple and objective, mREMS may hold value in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting in order to guide trauma team responses. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.