FOUR Score or GCS in Neurocritical Care: Modification or Adaptation

Evaluating impaired consciousness in the clinical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging. The eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiration pattern (FOUR) score and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score are two standard scoring systems for uniform, quantitative, and objective assessment of the severity of illness and predicting outcomes in neurocritical care. It is not clear which score has better calibration and discrimination power in predicting critical patients' outcomes. The debate has different implications for children as scoring systems face unique challenges when they are used for critically ill children. The GCS has been regularly utilized in neurosurgical ICUs, but its dependability in predicting patient outcomes is continuously debated.[1] The FOUR score is an indicator of the prognosis of fundamentally sick patients which has significant favorable circumstances.[2] [3] The FOUR score depends on the absolute minimum of tests essential for evaluating a patient with altered consciousness by incorporating many essential data that is not surveyed by the GCS or other scales. It includes the estimation of brainstem reflexes, determination of eye-opening, a broad spectrum of motor responses, and the presence of anomalous breath rhythms and a respiratory drive.[4]

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. Juli 2021

• References

• 1 Kho ME, McDonald E, Stratford PW, Cook DJ. Interrater reliability of APACHE II scores for medical-surgical intensive care patients: a prospective blinded study. Am J Crit Care 2007; 16 (04) 378-383
• 2 Foo CC, Loan JJ, Brennan PM. The relationship of the FOUR score to patient outcome: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma 2019; 36 (17) 2469-2483
• 3 Iyer VN, Mandrekar JN, Danielson RD, Zubkov AY, Elmer JL, Wijdicks EFM. Validity of the FOUR score coma scale in the medical intensive care unit. Mayo Clin Proc 2009; 84 (08) 694-701
• 4 Kasprowicz M, Burzynska M, Melcer T, Kübler A. A comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in predictive modelling in traumatic brain injury. Br J Neurosurg 2016; 30 (02) 211-220
• 5 Wolf CA, Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, McClelland RL. Further validation of the FOUR score coma scale by intensive care nurses. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82 (04) 435-438
• 6 Wijdicks EF, Kramer AA, Rohs Jr T. et al Comparison of the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score and the Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting mortality in critically ill patients*. Crit Care Med 2015; 43 (02) 439-444
• 7 McNett M, Amato S, Gianakis A. et al The FOUR score and GCS as predictors of outcome after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2014; 21 (01) 52-57
• 8 Okasha AS, Fayed AM, Saleh AS. The FOUR score predicts mortality, endotracheal intubation and ICU length of stay after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2014; 21 (03) 496-504
• 9 Zappa S, Fagoni N, Bertoni M. et al Imminent Brain Death Network Investigators. Determination of imminent brain death using the full outline of unresponsiveness score and the Glasgow coma scale: a prospective, multicenter, pilot feasibility study. J Intensive Care Med 2020; 35 (02) 203-207
• 10 Wijdicks EF, Bamlet WR, Maramattom BV, Manno EM, McClelland RL. Validation of a new coma scale: the FOUR score. Ann Neurol 2005; 58 (04) 585-593
• 11 Nyam TE, Ao KH, Hung SY, Shen ML, Yu TC, Kuo JR. FOUR score predicts early outcome in patients after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2017; 26 (02) 225-231
• 12 Nassar AP Jr, Mocelin AO, Nunes AL. et al Caution when using prognostic models: a prospective comparison of 3 recent prognostic models. J Crit Care 2012; 27 (04) 423.e1-423.e7
• 13 Ramazani J, Hosseini M. Prediction of ICU mortality in critically ill children: Comparison of SOFA, GCS, and FOUR score. Med Klin Intensivmed Notf Med 2019; 114 (08) 717-723
• 14 Brennan PM, Murray GD, Teasdale GM. A practical method for dealing with missing Glasgow Coma Scale verbal component scores. J Neurosurg 2020;