Comparison of Prehospital Calculated Age-Adjusted Pediatric Shock Index (SIPA) to Those Calculated in the ED for Identifying Trauma Patients That Needed the Highest-Level Activation Based on Consensus Criteria.

Background: The shock index (SI) is defined as the ratio of the heart rate to systolic blood pressure and a pediatric age-adjusted SI (SIPA) is more specific than the standard adult cutoff of 0.9 in identifying the sickest children presenting to a trauma center.Goal: To utilize prehospital vital signs to calculate the SIPA score and compare them to the SIPA calculated in the trauma bay to determine if they have the same validity in identifying critically ill children as determined by the consensus based standard criteria for trauma activation.Methods: Retrospective study using a cohort of patients transferred by EMS to a free standing, urban, level one, pediatric trauma center aged 1 to 16 years inclusive, and seen between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. Vital signs collected during the patch call from the EMS agency were used to calculate the EMS SIPA. The first set of vital signs collected in the trauma bay was used to calculate the ED SIPA. Patients were dichotomized to an elevated or non-elevated ED SIPA and an elevated or non-elevated EMS SIPA.Results: Our cohort consisted of 2651 patients. 546 (20.6%) patients had an elevated EMS SIPA and 438 (16.5%) had an elevated ED SIPA. When compared to their non-elevated counterparts, EMS and ED SIPA were both able to identify patients who met consensus criteria in all areas except the need for IR intervention, and unstable spinal fracture/spinal cord injury. For these criteria, the ED SIPA was better than the EMS SIPA. Sensitivity and specificity analysis reveal poor sensitivity for both measures but a high specificity for ED and EMS SIPA. Both SI and SIPA have a poor PPV but high NPV.Conclusions: This study utilized prehospital vital signs to calculate the SIPA score and compare them to the SIPA calculated in the trauma bay. Both scores had similar test metrics when based on the consensus based standard trauma criteria and could be utilized in the triage traumatic injuries.

Predictive value of the shock index (SI) compared to the age-adjusted pediatric shock index (SIPA) for identifying children that needed the highest-level trauma activation based on the presence of consensus criteria.

OBJECTIVES: In previous studies, SIPA was shown to be better than the SI in identifying children who have an elevated ISS, required transfusion, or were at a high risk of death. No comparison has been made to the consensus-based criteria that identify patients requiring the highest-level trauma activation. The objective of this study was to determine if the SIPA was more accurate than the SI in identifying children with increased need for trauma team activation as defined by the criterion standard definition, and secondly the sensitivity and specificity of the SI and SIPA. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected trauma based data. Children aged 1-17 years admitted to a pediatric level 1 trauma center between 1/1/16 and 12/31/17 and met the prehospital criteria for level 1 or 2 trauma activation were included. We evaluated the ability of SI > 0.9 at ED presentation and elevated SIPA to predict need for trauma activation based on consensus criteria. SIPA cutoffs were > 1.22 (age 4-6), >1.0 (age 7-12), and > 0.9 (age 13-17). RESULTS: Among 3378 children, 1486 (44%) had an elevated SI and 590 (18%) had an elevated SIPA. There were 160 (5%) patients who met at least one consensus criterion. Broadly, sensitivity and specificity analyses reveal poor sensitivity for both SI and SIPA (59.4% versus 43.1% respectively) measures but a moderate specificity for SIPA (83.8%). Both SI and SIPA have a poor PPV (6.4% versus 11.7%) but high NPV (96.6% versus 96.7%). Overall, SIPA has higher accuracy than SI in predicting consensus criteria 82% versus 57%). CONCLUSION: SIPA is more accurate than the SI in identifying children who meet a consensus criterion defining the need for highest-level trauma activation. The low PPV and sensitivity suggest that SIPA alone, while somewhat less likely to lead to overtriage than SI is not ideal for ruling in the need for level one resources as defined by the consensus criteria. Prognosis study, retrospective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.