Shock index as a marker for significant injury in trauma patients

被引:147
作者
King, RW
Plewa, MC
Buderer, NMF
Knotts, FB
机构
[1] TOLEDO HOSP,EMERGENCY MED RESIDENCY PROGRAM,ST VINCENT MED CTR,TOLEDO,OH 43608
[2] ST VINCENTS MED CTR,RES DEPT,TOLEDO,OH
[3] ST VINCENTS MED CTR,DEPT SURG,TOLEDO,OH
[4] MED COLL OHIO,DEPT SURG,TOLEDO,OH 43699
关键词
blood pressure; heart rate; sensitivity and specificity; shock; shock index; trauma; triage; vital signs;
D O I
10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03351.x
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100602 [中西医结合临床];
摘要
Objective: To determine whether the shock index (SI), defined as the ratio of heart rate (HR) to systolic blood pressure (SEP), is a useful marker for significant injury in trauma patients, Methods: A retrospective database analysis was used to relate the SI to the clinical measures: death within 24 hours, injury severity score (ISS) greater than or equal to 16, intensive care unit (ICU) stay greater than or equal to 1 day, and amount of blood transfused (BT) greater than or equal to 2 units, Consecutive trauma patients seen at one level I trauma center over a 24-month period were reviewed; excluded were patients not requiring trauma team consultation, or those with either incomplete records, severe head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 8), or age <14 years, The SI was calculated from ED admission vital signs, Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to find the value of the SI that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity for predicting each measure, separately; a separate analysis was done to determine the optimal SI threshold for predicting any of the severity measures, Results: 1,101 cases met study criteria, The optimal SI values (by ROC analysis) for predicting the severity measures were: 1.10 for death <24 hours, 0.71 for ISS greater than or equal to 16, 0.77 for ICU greater than or equal to 1 day, and 0.85 for BT greater than or equal to 2 units, The optimal SI value (by ROC analysis) for any of the above measures was 0.83; use of this SI cutoff provided a sensitivity of 37% (95% CI 32-42%), a specificity of 83% (95% CI 80-87%), and a negative predictive value of 58% (95% CI 54-61%) for any measure. This SI threshold predicted between 24% fewer cases and 4% more cases of poor outcome than did the optimal thresholds HR and SEP, respectively. Conclusion: The optimal SI threshold performed similarly to the optimal threshold HR or SEP for prediction of injury severity.
引用
收藏
页码:1041 / 1045
页数:5
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 1967, DTSCH MEDIZINISCHE W
[2]
INJURY SEVERITY SCORE - METHOD FOR DESCRIBING PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE INJURIES AND EVALUATING EMERGENCY CARE [J].
BAKER, SP ;
ONEILL, B ;
HADDON, W ;
LONG, WB .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 1974, 14 (03) :187-196
[3]
THE TRAUMA TRIAGE RULE - A NEW, RESOURCE-BASED APPROACH TO THE PREHOSPITAL IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR TRAUMA VICTIMS [J].
BAXT, WG ;
JONES, G ;
FORTLAGE, D .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1990, 19 (12) :1401-1406
[4]
A REVISION OF THE TRAUMA SCORE [J].
CHAMPION, HR ;
SACCO, WJ ;
COPES, WS ;
GANN, DS ;
GENNARELLI, TA ;
FLANAGAN, ME .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 1989, 29 (05) :623-629
[5]
THE MEANING AND USE OF THE AREA UNDER A RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC (ROC) CURVE [J].
HANLEY, JA ;
MCNEIL, BJ .
RADIOLOGY, 1982, 143 (01) :29-36
[6]
OESTERN HJ, 1980, RESUSCITATION, V7, P169
[7]
PHILLIPS JA, 1993, J TRAUMA, V34, P1127
[8]
SHOCK INDEX - A REEVALUATION IN ACUTE CIRCULATORY FAILURE [J].
RADY, MY ;
NIGHTINGALE, P ;
LITTLE, RA ;
EDWARDS, JD .
RESUSCITATION, 1992, 23 (03) :227-234
[9]
A COMPARISON OF THE SHOCK INDEX AND CONVENTIONAL VITAL SIGNS TO IDENTIFY ACUTE, CRITICAL ILLNESS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT [J].
RADY, MY ;
SMITHLINE, HA ;
BLAKE, H ;
NOWAK, R .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1994, 24 (04) :685-690
[10]
CONTINUOUS CENTRAL VENOUS OXIMETRY AND SHOCK INDEX IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT - USE IN THE EVALUATION OF CLINICAL SHOCK [J].
RADY, MY ;
RIVERS, EP ;
MARTIN, GB ;
SMITHLINE, H ;
APPELTON, T ;
NOWAK, RM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1992, 10 (06) :538-541