Role of the Stress Index in Predicting Mortality among Patients with Traumatic Femoral Fractures

Abstract

Background: Traumatic femoral fractures, often resulting from high-energy impacts such as traffic accidents, necessitate immediate management to avoid severe complications. The Stress Index (SI), defined as the glucose-to-potassium ratio, serves as a predictor of mortality and adverse outcomes in various trauma contexts. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic value of the SI in patients with traumatic femoral fractures. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult trauma patients aged 20 or above with traumatic femoral fractures from the Trauma Registry System at a level 1 trauma center in southern Taiwan between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2022. At the emergency room, serum electrolyte levels were assessed using baseline laboratory testing. By dividing blood glucose (mg/dL) by potassium (mEq/L), the SI was calculated. The best cut-off value of the SI for predicting mortality was determined using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC). Results: A total of 3717 patients made up the final group, of which 3653 survived and 64 died. In comparison to survivors, deceased patients had substantially higher blood glucose levels (199.3 vs. 159.0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and SIs (53.1 vs. 41.6, p < 0.001). The optimal SI cut-off value for predicting mortality was 49.7, with a sensitivity of 53.1% and a specificity of 78.7% (AUC = 0.609). High SI was associated with increased mortality (4.2% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001) and longer hospital stays (12.8 vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratios of mortality, controlled by comorbidities, the Glasgow Coma Scale, and the Injury Severity Score, were significantly higher in patients with a higher SI (AOR 2.05, p = 0.016) than those with a lower SI. Conclusions: Elevated SI upon admission correlates with higher mortality and extended hospital stay in patients with traumatic femoral fractures. Although the SI has a moderate predictive value, it remains a useful early risk assessment tool, necessitating further prospective, multi-center studies for validation and standardization.