Hubbry Logo
Baux scoreBaux scoreMain
Open search
Baux score
Community hub
Baux score
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Baux score
Baux score
Baux score
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Baux score
Purposedetermine mortality due to burns

The Baux score is a system used to predict the chance of mortality due to burns.[1] The score is an index which takes into account the correlative and causal relationship between mortality and factors including advancing age, burn size, the presence of inhalational injury.[2] Studies have shown that the Baux score is highly correlative with length of stay in hospital due to burns and final outcome.[3]

Methods

[edit]

Original method

[edit]

The original Baux score was the addition of two factors, the first being the total body surface area affected by burning (usually estimated using the Wallace rule of nines, or calculated using a Lund and Browder chart) and the second being the age of the patient.

The score is determined by the calculation:

Baux score = (percent body surface burned) + (patient's age)

The score is a comparative indicator of burn severity, with a score over 140 considered as being unsurvivable, depending on the available treatment resources.

Modified method

[edit]

Research demonstrated that with improvements in medical care rendered the original method too pessimistic in its outcome prediction. This resulted in the publication of a modified methodology which took into account the effect of inhalation injury. It was found that inhalation injury resulted in an increase of around 17 on the Baux score, and this addition means that a patient with inhalation injury would have their score calculated by body area affected + age of patient + 17.[1]

Recent analysis of mortality in burn units worldwide has shown that for well performing units the LD50 (the point at which 50% of patients would be expected to die) for major burns has significantly improved and the best units have a modified Baux score of 130-140. This means that all burns in children (except 100% TBSA full-thickness burns) should be considered survivable injuries and actively treated.[4]

Efficacy

[edit]

Studies have shown Baux score to be effective in measuring comparative severity of burn injuries, and in predicting the prognosis for the patient. The modified version, which includes inhalation injuries, is more accurate than the original method, although neither method is as accurate as more complex calculated scores using advanced computer modelling.[1]

The Baux score has been shown to be effective in predicting outcome in 87% of presenting patients aged 60 and above.[5]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Baux score

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Baux score is a prognostic tool used in burn care to estimate the probability of mortality in patients with thermal injuries, calculated as the sum of the patient's age in years and the percentage of total (TBSA) burned, where the resulting value approximates the expected in percent. Introduced in 1961 by French surgeon Serge Baux as a straightforward clinical index based on empirical observations from burn cases, although it was never formally published but only introduced anecdotally, it was initially derived from data on patients treated at a Paris burn center and quickly gained widespread adoption due to its simplicity and predictive accuracy in resource-limited settings. Over time, advancements in burn management—such as improved surgical techniques, critical care, and infection control—have enhanced survival rates, prompting refinements to the original formula; the revised Baux score (rBaux), developed in , incorporates an additional 17 points if inhalation injury is present, better accounting for respiratory complications that significantly worsen outcomes. The score remains valuable for , resource allocation, and counseling families, with values exceeding 100 often indicating high mortality risk in modern contexts, though its limitations include overestimating mortality in pediatric patients without age-specific adjustments, as children often have better outcomes than predicted. Despite the emergence of more complex models like the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), the Baux score endures as a foundational metric in burn due to its ease of use and robust validation across diverse populations.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

The Baux score is a numerical index designed to predict in-hospital mortality in burn patients by integrating two key factors: the patient's age in years and the total (TBSA) burned, expressed as a percentage of the total body. This straightforward combination allows for quick computation at the time of admission, making it a valuable tool in the initial evaluation of injuries. The primary purpose of the Baux score is to facilitate rapid prognostic assessment, enabling clinicians to guide treatment decisions, allocate limited resources in burn units, and provide informed counseling to patients' families regarding expected outcomes. By estimating mortality probability, it helps prioritize interventions for those at highest risk while supporting broader care strategies in resource-constrained environments. Central to the score is the accurate estimation of TBSA burned, which quantifies the extent of thermal injury across the body; common methods include the Lund-Browder chart, a standardized diagram that divides the body into regions with percentages adjusted for age to improve precision, particularly in pediatric cases. In burn severity classification, the Baux score stands apart from general trauma tools like the Injury Severity Score (ISS), which aggregates injuries across multiple body systems without specific focus on burn extent or age-related vulnerabilities. The score exists in original and revised forms, with the latter incorporating refinements for enhanced applicability in modern burn management.

Historical Development

The Baux score was developed in 1961 by French surgeon Professor Serge Baux as part of his medical titled "Contribution à l'étude du traitement local des brûlures thermiques étendues". Baux's work focused on the between age, total (TBSA) burned, and mortality, creating a simple additive index to estimate prognosis in severe burn cases under resource-constrained conditions. Initially disseminated anecdotally through clinical practice rather than formal publication, the score remained unpublished for years, limiting its early widespread adoption. Formal recognition emerged in the , with Stern and Waisbren providing one of the first comparative analyses in 1979, evaluating the Baux score alongside other prediction methods using data from over 3,000 burn patients. Their study highlighted the score's predictive accuracy while noting limitations, such as the need to exclude pediatric cases (under age 20) due to differing mortality patterns in children, prompting initial adjustments for adult-focused application. This work marked a pivotal step in validating and refining the original formula for broader clinical use in burn centers. A significant advancement occurred in 2010 when Osler et al. proposed the revised Baux score, building on national burn repository data to incorporate inhalation injury as a key factor by adding 17 points to the base calculation, thereby enhancing prognostic precision in modern burn care settings. This modification addressed gaps in the original model, where respiratory complications were increasingly recognized as major contributors to mortality. The score's enduring relevance was affirmed by a 2012 retrospective cohort study by Roberts et al., examining 11,109 patients over 27 years (1982–2008) at a regional burns service, which showed survival rates improving markedly (from 50% in the to over 90% in the for equivalent Baux scores), reflecting advances in supportive therapies despite stable injury severities. Globally, the Baux score has influenced burn research, with validations in developing countries—such as and —spurring context-specific adaptations.

Calculation Methods

Original Baux Score

The original Baux score is a foundational prognostic index for burn mortality, calculated by summing the patient's age in years and the percentage of total (TBSA) burned. This simple formula, age + %TBSA burned, was developed in a medical thesis by French surgeon Serge Baux to quantify the combined impact of these two primary risk factors on survival outcomes in severe burns. The derivation stemmed from clinical observations of burn patients treated in , revealing a linear between the score and mortality probability, where the numerical value approximated the percentage chance of death under the medical standards of that era. In the initial formulation, scores exceeding 75 were considered indicative of an unfavorable , with values over 100 signaling near-certain mortality in the studied cohorts, reflecting limited therapeutic interventions available at the time. For example, a 50-year-old with a 40% TBSA yields a score of 90, which originally corresponded to an estimated 90% mortality risk and thus a high but not absolute likelihood of . This direct equivalence to mortality percentage provided a straightforward clinical benchmark, though it did not account for factors like inhalation injury. Subsequent adaptations in the , such as the modification by Stern and Waisbren, refined the score's application by excluding patients under 20 years old to better address age-related physiological differences in younger individuals, while raising the high-risk threshold to scores over 100 for adults. These early versions emphasized the score's utility in resource-limited settings for rapid and prognostic counseling, prioritizing the interplay of advancing age and burn extent as dominant predictors of outcome.

Revised Baux Score

The revised Baux score (rBaux) addresses a key limitation of the original model by incorporating the presence of , which significantly impacts outcomes. The formula for calculating the rBaux is the patient's age in years plus the percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) , plus 17 if is present. The value of 17 was determined through analysis of a large , demonstrating the optimal additive factor for improving model fit and predictive performance. Inhalation is diagnosed primarily through clinical signs and history, without requiring advanced or invasive procedures in initial assessments. Key indicators include facial or nasal , soot deposits in the airways or , singed nasal hairs, hoarseness, , and elevated levels greater than 10%. To illustrate, consider a 50-year-old with a 40% TBSA and confirmed : the rBaux score is calculated as 50 + 40 + 17 = 107, indicating a high mortality risk. While the rBaux score provides a direct numerical estimate, it can be converted to a precise mortality probability using a post-calculation logit formula: probability = e^(9.4 - 0.072 × score) / (1 + e^(9.4 - 0.072 × score)). This step allows for more granular risk stratification beyond the raw score value.

Interpretation and Clinical Use

Mortality Probability Estimation

The mortality probability associated with the revised Baux (rBaux) score follows an S-shaped logistic relationship, reflecting a model where risk remains relatively low at lower scores but increases exponentially as the score rises, based on logistic regression analysis of large burn patient cohorts. This curve, calibrated from data on over 39,000 patients, provides a more accurate prediction than linear approximations, with the probability of death calculated as P=11+e−(rBaux−β)/αP = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-(rBaux - \beta)/\alpha}}, where parameters β\beta and α\alpha are derived empirically to fit observed outcomes (approximately β≈70.4\beta \approx 70.4 and α≈14.1\alpha \approx 14.1 in the foundational model). Aggregated data from validation studies indicate general thresholds for risk stratification: an rBaux score below 75 correlates with less than 20% mortality, scores between 75 and 100 with 20-50% mortality, and scores above 100 with greater than 50% mortality, though actual rates vary by era of care and resource availability due to improvements in burn management over time. For instance, scores in the 120 range have been linked to around 44% mortality in U.S.-based analyses, highlighting the exponential uptick in . While primarily driven by age, total burned (TBSA), and embedded in the score, estimations can incorporate adjustments for sex (e.g., via abbreviated burn severity index integration) or comorbidities (e.g., using Charlson index extensions) in refined models for higher precision in complex cases. Bedside tools facilitate conversion of raw rBaux scores to probability percentages, including printed nomograms for manual plotting and digital applications that apply the logistic formula for instant results, enhancing clinical utility without computational aids.

Prognostic and Triage Applications

The revised Baux score serves as a practical triaging tool in burn care, particularly on admission, to guide resource allocation and patient prioritization in clinical settings. In resource-limited environments, such as mass casualty incidents, high scores—typically exceeding 100—prompt decisions for intensive care unit (ICU) transfer for potentially salvageable patients or initiation of palliative discussions when survival prospects are poor, thereby optimizing limited resources like ventilator support and specialized beds. In family counseling, the Baux score provides a quantitative basis for communicating realistic survival expectations to patients' loved ones, facilitating informed goals-of-care discussions early in treatment. For instance, scores above 100 often trigger consultations to explore options like comfort-focused care, while scores exceeding 130, associated with approximately 88% mortality, commonly lead to conversations about withholding or withdrawing aggressive interventions. The Baux score integrates into standard protocols as part of the secondary survey following the initial ABCDE (Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure) assessment, aiding decisions on and transfer. It complements the primary trauma evaluation by offering an immediate prognostic estimate to inform fluid management, surgical planning, and referral to specialized units, ensuring a structured approach to initial patient stabilization. At the institutional level, the Baux score enables of outcomes across burn services by tracking mortality trends over time. A 27-year retrospective of over 11,000 patients demonstrated its utility in quantifying survival improvements, with the Baux50 (score predicting 50% mortality) rising from historical values to 109.6 by 2000-2008, reflecting advancements in care that have increased the lethal area 50 (burn size causing 50% mortality) and shifted the point of futility higher.

Efficacy and Validation

Predictive Accuracy in Studies

The revised Baux score has exhibited superior predictive accuracy compared to the original formulation across numerous validation studies, with area under the curve (AUC) values frequently surpassing 0.95 in diverse cohorts, while the original Baux score generally yields AUC values around 0.85. This enhanced performance stems from the inclusion of inhalation injury as a factor, improving discrimination of mortality risk in burn patients. More recent global evaluations have reinforced this accuracy in resource-limited settings; for instance, a 2024 multicenter in involving 101 burn patients reported the revised Baux score achieving over 90% accuracy in mortality prediction, with an optimal cutoff of 74.5 yielding an AUC of 0.94. Similarly, a 2021 retrospective analysis in of 15,975 burn patients demonstrated the revised Baux score's AUC of 0.96, confirming greater than 90% predictive precision in a developing-country context. Regarding , the revised Baux score performs particularly well for high-risk patients, exhibiting high sensitivity (e.g., 96% at scores exceeding 100) in identifying those likely to succumb to burn injuries, though specificity may vary by population. In pediatric cases, however, accuracy diminishes, with AUC values around 0.90 due to physiological differences not fully captured by the model. A 2012 UK retrospective cohort study spanning 27 years (1982–2008) and encompassing 11,109 patients at a regional burns service highlighted temporal improvements in outcomes, revealing that actual mortality rates consistently fell below revised Baux predictions over time, attributable to advances in burn care such as improved fluid resuscitation and infection control. This divergence underscores the score's ongoing utility as a benchmark while illustrating evolving clinical realities. A 2024 Iranian study further validated the revised Baux score in pediatric burn patients, confirming its good predictive accuracy.

Comparisons to Other Prognostic Tools

The Baux score, particularly its revised version (rBaux), is often compared to the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), which incorporates six variables including age, , percentage of full-thickness burns, injury, burn region, and burn depth. In contrast, rBaux relies on only three factors—age, total body surface area (TBSA) burned, and an adjustment for injury—making it simpler and quicker to compute at the bedside. Studies show ABSI achieving slightly higher area under the curve (AUC) values, such as 0.93 versus 0.89 for rBaux in one Indonesian cohort, though both demonstrate strong predictive performance overall. ABSI's inclusion of and burn depth contributes to marginally better accuracy in pediatric cases, where rBaux may overestimate mortality risk. Compared to the Belgian Outcome in Burn Injury (BOBI) score, which categorically assesses age, TBSA, and injury across 10 points, rBaux offers faster applicability due to its arithmetic simplicity. BOBI, derived from Belgian multicenter data (1999–2004), integrates burn extent more explicitly and has shown comparable or slightly superior AUC in European validation cohorts, such as 0.91 versus 0.92 for rBaux in a recent study from an Indonesian cohort published in a Korean journal, with high specificity (up to 100%). However, rBaux remains preferred for rapid clinical decision-making in resource-limited settings, while BOBI excels in detailed prognostic assessments within European burn care systems. Logistic regression models, such as those endorsed by the International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) for research purposes, typically outperform rBaux in discriminative power by incorporating multifaceted predictors like comorbidities and laboratory values, achieving higher calibration in large datasets. For instance, a logistic model derived from the U.S. National Burn Repository demonstrated superior accuracy to rBaux, though its complexity limits bedside utility compared to rBaux's straightforward calculation. rBaux is thus favored for practical triage and initial prognostication, while logistic models are better suited for in-depth research and customized predictions. Recent enhancements to the Baux score, such as incorporating admission lactate levels, have improved mortality prediction in severe burns, raising the AUC from 0.906 to 0.938 in a 2021 retrospective analysis of 222 critically ill patients. This modification is particularly relevant for cases prone to , where lactate reflects early physiological derangement, though it requires not always available in scenarios.

Limitations and Considerations

Factors Not Accounted For

The Baux score, relying solely on age and total (TBSA) burned, omits preexisting comorbidities, which independently elevate mortality risk in burn patients. Preexisting has been shown to increase the risk of mortality by 46% beyond what age and TBSA alone predict, as comorbidities contribute to complications like impaired , infections, and cardiovascular instability. This limitation persists even in the revised Baux score, which does not incorporate comorbidity indices like the , potentially leading to underestimation of risk in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Burn depth and are additional factors not captured by the Baux score, despite their substantial influence on . Full-thickness burns, which extend through the and often require surgical intervention, are associated with higher mortality rates compared to partial-thickness burns due to greater tissue destruction and susceptibility, yet the score treats all burns equally based on surface area alone. Similarly, chemical and electrical burns can cause deeper, non- injuries with systemic effects like organ damage or arrhythmias, altering outcomes without adjustment in the formula; for instance, electrical burns can have higher mortality rates than thermal burns of equivalent TBSA in some cohorts. Delayed presentation to care, particularly in developing countries, further compromises the Baux score's reliability by increasing risks and , which are not factored into its calculations. In resource-limited settings, where access to timely treatment is hindered, patients often arrive with advanced , elevating mortality by introducing variables like bacterial load that can reduce the score's predictive accuracy. The original Baux score also exhibits reduced precision in pediatric and geriatric populations due to unaccounted physiological and frailty-specific factors. In children, the formula tends to underestimate mortality, as the all-ages model predicts fewer deaths than observed. Conversely, in elderly patients, it may overestimate risk in resource-limited settings due to a non-linear relationship between age and mortality, though the score does not differentiate such subtleties. The revised Baux score addresses inhalation injury but retains these age-related gaps.

Updates and Ongoing Research

Recent research has explored integrating biomarkers such as admission lactate levels with the revised Baux score to enhance mortality prediction accuracy in severe patients. A 2021 study of 222 critically ill patients found that adding admission lactate to the base model of age and total burned (TBSA%) significantly improved the area under the curve (AUC) from 0.906 to 0.938, demonstrating superior discriminative performance despite moderate lactate elevation in only a subset of cases. This approach leverages lactate as a readily available marker of tissue hypoperfusion, potentially refining prognostic assessments in acute settings. Advancements in and have positioned the Baux score as a foundational baseline for developing more sophisticated predictive algorithms. In a 2023 study implementing AI models for high-risk burn patients, techniques incorporating clinical variables outperformed traditional scores in some scenarios, with the revised Baux score serving as a benchmark for validation and highlighting areas for algorithmic enhancement. Similarly, a 2024 development of the Bochum Burn Survival (BoBS) score utilized on German burn registry data to create a simplified 0-10 scale predictor, achieving high accuracy while building upon Baux-derived parameters for survival estimation. These efforts aim to incorporate dynamic data like and laboratory results, though integration with remains underexplored in burn-specific contexts. Ongoing global validations emphasize adapting the Baux score for diverse settings, particularly low-resource environments. A 2024 multicentre in involving 101 burn patients across three tertiary hospitals reported an AUC of 0.943 for the revised Baux score in predicting mortality, with a of 74.5 yielding 100% sensitivity and 83.5% specificity. This validation underscores the score's robustness without specialized burn units, recommending its routine use for and in African low-income contexts, while noting the need to account for delayed presentations common in such areas. Proposals for revising the Baux score continue to emerge from analyses of patient-specific factors, including (BMI). A 2020 investigation into severe injuries found a negative between BMI and mortality, with pre-obese patients (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²) showing protective effects, but concluded that BMI does not linearly integrate into the revised Baux formula due to its non-linear impact. A 2023 and of the revised Baux score affirmed its overall predictive validity across populations but highlighted opportunities for refinements based on comorbidities like , informed by the "" observed in outcomes. Further meta-analyses suggest exploring adjustments for procedural interventions, though specific modifications remain under evaluation in prospective trials.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9020854/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6199008/
  3. https://www.vumc.org/burn/sites/default/files/public_files/Protocols/Burn%2520Palliation%2520Guidelines%2520-%2520February%25202023.pdf
  4. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%253A2868742/view
  5. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2022/12000/risk_models_to_predict_mortality_in_burn_patients_.20.aspx
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121001990
  7. https://bmcemergmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12873-019-0284-8
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40805801_Simplified_Estimates_of_the_Probability_of_Death_After_Burn_Injuries_Extending_and_Updating_the_Baux_Score
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6895471/
  10. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/jounal-article-info/JSM-Burns-and-Trauma/The-History-of-Mortality--Prognostic-Scales-in-Severe--Burns-2410
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11044732/
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/451472/
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20038856/
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22310134/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8310867/
  16. https://journals.lww.com/annals-of-medicine-and-surgery/fulltext/2024/08000/role_of_the_revised_baux_score_in_predicting.15.aspx
  17. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/JSM-Burns-and-Trauma/The-History-of-Mortality--Prognostic-Scales-in-Severe--Burns-2410.pdf
  18. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1155796/FULLTEXT02
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513261/
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370990328_The_Revised_Baux_Score_as_a_Predictor_of_Burn_Mortality_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis
  21. https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2126&context=research_day
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280135873_Revised_Baux_Score_and_updated_Charlson_comorbidity_index_are_independently_associated_with_mortality_in_burns_intensive_care_patients
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417914001661
  24. https://www.stechnolock.com/article/Revised-Baux-Score-in-Predicting.pdf
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392419306530
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7452602/
  27. https://academic.oup.com/jbcr/article-pdf/41/Supplement_1/S239/32763943/iraa024.380.pdf
  28. https://www.cureus.com/articles/124019-medical-and-surgical-care-of-critical-burn-patients-a-comprehensive-review-of-current-evidence-and-practice
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9754771/
  30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24553558/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305736/
  32. http://caspianjp.ir/article-1-224-en.pdf
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X21000422
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417915000960
  35. https://www.jwmr.org/m/journal/view.php?number=517
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417920305568
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8433150/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417917300463
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8717902/
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41572-020-0145-5
  41. https://e-century.us/files/ijbt/11/3/ijbt0131849.pdf
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4143432/
  43. https://www.journalofsurgicalresearch.com/article/S0022-4804(20)30658-2/fulltext
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508143/
  45. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97524-9
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10528558/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417925002438
  48. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000001774
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33234365/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37220881/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.