FOUR Score sebagai Alternatif dalam Menilai Derajat Keparahan dan Memprediksi Mortalitas pada Pasien Cedera Otak Traumatik yang Diintubasi

Prananda Surya Airlangga, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Hospital Surabaya, Indonesia, Hamzah Hamzah, Dhania A. Santosa, Andri Subiantoro, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Hospital Surabaya, Indonesia
2020 Jurnal Neuroanestesi Indonesia  
The ideal consciousness scoring scale must be linear, reliable, valid, and user-friendly. There is a need to develop and validate a scale to quickly evaluate the level of consciousness, the severity of the disease, and the prognosis of morbidity and mortality. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used tool to assess the level of consciousness and is considered the gold standard. However, GCS has several limitations, such as inability to evaluate verbal components in intubated patients.
more » ... To overcome these challenges, researchers developed the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score. FOUR scores is a clinical grading scale to assess the altered state of consciousness. FOUR scores is simpler and able to provide better information, especially in intubated-traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Some studies showed that GCS and FOUR scores have the high predictive value in predicting not only the mortality of trauma patients but also the outcome of discharged patients. A multicentre study showed that FOUR scores and GCS do not differ in predicting inpatient mortality. This study suggested that the FOUR scores could be a better diagnostic tool for assessing brainstem reflexes and breathing patterns. Unfortunately, some studies have found conflicting results between GCS and FOUR scores in predicting patient outcomes. These contradictions suggest the need to conduct more studies. Therefore, this literature review will compare GCS and FOUR scores in predicting mortality of TBI patients.
doi:10.24244/jni.v9i3.280 fatcat:36asktrbxjhfrfoi5cl5nfdcwq