Emergency medical services shock index is the most accurate predictor of patient outcomes after blunt torso trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Shock index (SI) and delta shock index (∆SI) predict mortality and blood transfusion in trauma patients. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of SI and ∆SI in a rural environment with prolonged transport times and transfers from critical access hospitals or level IV trauma centers. METHODS: We completed a retrospective database review at an American College of Surgeons verified level 1 trauma center for 2 years. Adult subjects analyzed sustained torso trauma. Subjects with missing data or severe head trauma were excluded. For analysis, poisson regression and binomial logistic regression were used to study the effect of time in transport and SI/∆SI on resource utilization and outcomes. p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 549 scene patients and 127 transfers. Mean Injury Severity Score was 11 (interquartile range, 9.0) for scene and 13 (interquartile range, 6.5) for transfers. Initial emergency medical services SI was the most significant predictor for blood transfusion and intensive care unit care in both scene and transferred patients (p < 0.0001) compared with trauma center arrival SI or transferring center SI. A negative ∆SI was significantly associated with the need for transfusion and the number of units transfused. Longer transport time also had a significant relationship with increasing intensive care unit length of stay. Cohorts were analyzed separately. CONCLUSION: Providers must maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for patients who had an initially elevated SI. Emergency medical services SI was the greatest predictor of injury and need for resources. Enroute SI and ∆SI were less predictive as time from injury increased. This highlights the improvements in en route care but does not eliminate the need for high-level trauma intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Comparison of the Previous and Current Trauma-Related Shock Classifications: A Retrospective Cohort Study from a Level I Trauma Center.

PURPOSE: The aim was to examine the predictive value of the hypovolemic shock classification currently accepted by the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) program over the previous one, which used only vital signs (VS) for patient allocation. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; as secondary outcome, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and base deficit (BD) data were compared and investigated in terms of mortality prediction. METHODS: Retrospective analysis at a level I trauma center between 2014 and 2019. Adult patients treated by trauma teams were allocated into severity classes (I-IV) based on the criteria of the current and previous ATLS classifications, respectively. The prognostic values for the classifications were determined with Fisher's exact test and χ2 test for independence, and compared with the 2-proportion Z test. The individual variables were analyzed with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mortality was effectively predicted by both classifications, and there was no statistically significant difference between the predictive performances. According to ROC analyses, GCS, BD and SBP had significant prognostic values while HR change was ineffective in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: The currently used ATLS shock classification does not appear to be superior to the VS-based previous classification. GCS, BD and SBP are useful parameters to predict the prognosis. Changes in HR do not reflect the clinical course accurately; thus, further studies will be needed to determine the value of this parameter in trauma-associated hypovolemic-hemorrhagic shock conditions.

Early detection of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at high risk of clinical deterioration: Utility of emergency department shock index.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has put an unprecedented strain on Emergency Departments (EDs) and other critical care resources. Early detection of patients that are at high risk of clinical deterioration and require intensive monitoring, is key in ED evaluation and disposition. A rapid and easy risk-stratification tool could aid clinicians in early decision making. The Shock Index (SI: heart rate/systolic blood pressure) proved useful in detecting hemodynamic instability in sepsis and myocardial infarction patients. In this study we aim to determine whether SI is discriminative for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, single-center study. All patients ≥18 years old who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (defined as: positive result on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test) between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included for analysis. Data were collected from electronic medical patient records and stored in a protected database. ED shock index was calculated and analyzed for its discriminative value on in-hospital mortality and ICU admission by a ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: In total, 411 patients were included. Of all patients 249 (61%) were male. ICU admission was observed in 92 patients (22%). Of these, 37 patients (40%) died in the ICU. Total in-hospital mortality was 28% (114 patients). For in-hospital mortality the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.86 was not discriminative (AUC 0.49 (95% CI: 0.43-0.56)), with a sensitivity of 12.3% and specificity of 93.6%. For ICU admission the optimal cut-off SI ≥ 0.57 was also not discriminative (AUC 0.56 (95% CI: 0.49-0.62)), with a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 34.2%. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, SI measured at ED presentation was not discriminative for ICU admission and was not useful for early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

Interobserver Agreement for Classifying Post-liver Transplant Biliary Strictures in Donation After Circulatory Death Donors.

INTRODUCTION: Biliary strictures are a common complication of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) and require multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Three classification systems, based on cholangiograms, have been proposed for categorizing post-LT biliary strictures. We examined the interobserver agreement for each of the three classifications. METHODS: DCD LT recipients from 2012 through March 2017 undergoing ERCP for biliary strictures were included in the study. Initial cholangiograms delineating the entire biliary tree prior to endoscopic intervention were selected. One representative cholangiogram was selected from each ERCP. Five interventional endoscopists independently viewed each anonymized cholangiogram and classified the post-LT stricture according to each of the three classification systems. The Ling classification proposes four types of post-LT strictures based on their location. The Lee classification proposes four classes based on location and number of intrahepatic strictures. The binary system classifies strictures into anastomotic or non-anastomotic types. The Krippendorff's alpha reliability estimate was used to grade the strength of agreement as "poor," "fair," "moderate," "good," or "excellent" for values between 0-0.20, 0.21-0.4, 0.41-0.6, 0.61-0.08, and 0.81-1, respectively. RESULTS: One hundred DCD LT recipients (age 57.07 ± 8.8 years; 71 males) were initially evaluated. Of these, 49 patients who underwent 206 ERCP procedures for biliary strictures were included in the analysis. One hundred thirty-nine cholangiograms were selected and subsequently classified by five endoscopists. Interobserver agreement for post-LT biliary strictures was 0.354 for Ling classification (fair agreement), 0.405 for Lee classification (fair agreement), and 0.421 for the binary classification (moderate agreement). The binary classification provided the least amount of detail regarding the location and number of biliary strictures. DISCUSSION: The currently available classification systems for assessing post-LT biliary strictures have sub-optimal interobserver agreement. A better-designed classification system is needed for categorizing post-LT biliary strictures.

Kawasaki Disease and Kawasaki Disease Shock Syndrome Hospitalization Rates in the United States, 2006-2018.

BACKGROUND: Kawasaki disease (KD) is a febrile illness of unknown etiology. Patients with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome (KDSS) may present with clinical signs of poor perfusion and systolic hypotension in addition to typical KD features. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzes and interprets large hospitalization databases as a mechanism for conducting national KD surveillance. METHODS: The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS), and the IBM MarketScan Commercial (MSC) and MarketScan Medicaid (MSM) databases were analyzed to determine KD-associated hospitalization rates and trends from 2006 to the most recent year of available data. KD and potential KDSS hospitalizations were defined using International Classification of Disease-Clinical Modification codes. RESULTS: For the most recent year, the KD-associated hospitalization rates for children <5 years of age were 19.8 (95% CI: 17.2-22.3, KID: 2016), 19.6 (95% CI: 16.8-22.4, NIS: 2017), 19.3 (MSC: 2018), and 18.4 (MSM: 2018) per 100,000. There was no indication of an increase in KD rates over the time period. Rates of potential KDSS among children <18 years of age, ranging from 0.0 to 0.7 per 100,000, increased; coding indicated potential KDSS for approximately 2.8%-5.3% of KD hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of these large, national databases produced consistent KD-associated hospitalization rates, with no increase over time detected; however, the percentage of KD hospitalizations with potential KDSS increased. Given reports of increasing incidence elsewhere and the recent identification of a novel virus-associated syndrome with possible Kawasaki-like features, continued national surveillance is important to detect changes in disease epidemiology.

Prognostic performance of peripheral perfusion index and shock index combined with ESI to predict hospital outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral perfusion index (PPI) and shock index (SI) are considered valuable predictors of hospital outcome and mortality in various operative and intensive care settings. In the present study, we evaluated the prognostic capabilities of these parameters for performing emergency department (ED) triage, as represented by the emergency severity index (ESI). METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study included 367 patients aged older than 18 years who visited the ED of a tertiary referral hospital. The ESI triage levels with PPI, SI, and other basic vital sign parameters were recorded for each patient. The hospital outcome of the patients at the end of the ED period, such as discharge, admission to the hospital and death were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients (M/F: 178/189) admitted to the ED were categorized according to ESI and included in the study. A decrease in diastolic BP, SpO2 and PPI increased the likelihood of hospitalization and 30-day mortality. Based on univariate analysis, a significant improvement in performance was found by using age, diastolic BP, mean arterial pressure, SpO2, SI and PPI in terms of predicting high acuity level patients (ESI < 3). In the multivariable analysis only SpO2 and PPI were found to predict ESI < 3 patients. CONCLUSION: Peripheral perfusion index and SI as novel triage instruments might provide useful information for predicting hospital admission and mortality in ED patients. The addition of these parameters to existing triage instruments such as ESI could enhance the triage specificity in unselected patients admitted to ED.

Validation of the age-adjusted shock index for pediatric casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric casualties account for a notable proportion of encounters in the deployed setting based on the humanitarian medical care mission. Previously published data demonstrates that an age-adjust shock index may be a useful tool in predicting massive transfusion and death in children. We seek to determine if those previous findings are applicable to the deployed, combat trauma setting. METHODS: We queried the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for all pediatric subjects admitted to US and Coalition fixed-facility hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan from January 2007 to January 2016. This is a secondary analysis of casualties seeking to validate previously published data using the shock index, pediatric age-adjusted. We then used previously published thresholds to determine patients outcome for validation by age grouping, 1-3 years (1.2), 4-6 years (1.2), 7-12 years (1.0), 13-17 years (0.9). RESULTS: From January 2007 through January 2016 there were 3439 pediatric casualties of which 3145 had a documented heart rate and systolic pressure. Of those 502 (16.0%) underwent massive transfusion and 226 (7.2%) died prior to hospital discharge. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) thresholds were inconsistent across age groups ranging from 1.0 to 1.9 with generally limited area under the curve (AUC) values for both massive transfusion and death prediction characteristics. Using the previously defined thresholds for validation, we report sensitivity and specificity for the massive transfusion by age-group: 1-3 (0.73, 0.35), 4-6 (0.63, 0.60), 7-12 (0.80, 0.57), 13-17 (0.77, 0.62). For death, 1-3 (0.75, 0.34), 4-6 (0.66-0.59), 7-12 (0.64, 0.52), 13-17 (0.70, 0.57). However, negative predictive values (NPV) were generally high with all greater than 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Within the combat setting, the age-adjusted pediatric shock index had moderate sensitivity and relatively poor specificity for predicting massive transfusion and death. Better scoring systems are needed to predict resource needs prior to arrival, that perhaps include other physiologic metrics. We were unable to validate the previously published findings within the combat trauma population.

All trauma is not created equal: Redefining severe trauma for combat injuries.

Injury severity scores (ISS) and shock index (SI) are popular trauma scoring systems. We assessed ISS and SI in combat trauma to determine the optimal cut-off values for mortality and trauma outcomes. Retrospective analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry, 2008-2016, was performed. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were calculated for ISS and SI on mortality, massive volume transfusion (MVT), and emergent surgical procedure (ESP). Optimal cut-off values were defined using the Youden index (YI). 22,218 patients (97.1% male), median ages 25-29 years, ISS 9.4 ± 0.07, with 58.1% penetrating injury were studied. Overall mortality was 3.4%. AUROCs for ISS on mortality, MVT, and ESP were 0.882, 0.898, and 0.846, while AUROCs for SI were 0.727, 0.864, and 0.711 respectively. The optimal cut-off values for ISS on mortality, MVT, and ESP were 12.5 (YI = 0.634), 12.5 (YI = 0.666), and 12.5 (YI = 0.819), with optimal values for SI being 0.94 (YI = 0.402), 0.88 (YI = 0.608), and 0.81 (YI = 0.345) respectively. Classic values for severe ISS underrepresent combat injury while the SI values defined in this study are consistent with civilian data.

Relative blood loss in forensic medicine-do we need a change in doctrine?

In forensic medicine, blood loss is encountered frequently, either as a cause of death or as a contributing factor. Here, risk to life and lethality assessment is based on the concept of relative blood loss (absolute loss out of total volume). In emergency medicine, the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLSⓇ) classification also refers to relative blood loss. We tested the validity of relative blood loss benchmarks with reference to lethality. Depending on the quality of the total blood volume (TBV) estimation formula, relative blood loss rates should be reflected in the case cohort as significantly higher absolute blood loss in heavier individuals since all TBV estimation formulas positively correlate body weight with TBV. METHOD: 80 autopsy cases with sudden, quantifiable, exclusively internal blood loss were retrospectively analyzed and a total of 8 different formulas for TBV estimation were applied. RESULTS: No statistical correlation between body weight and absolute blood loss was found for any of the tested TBV estimation algorithms. All cases showed a wide spread of both absolute and relative blood loss. DISCUSSION: The principle of relative blood loss is of very limited use in casework. It opens the forensic expert opinion to unnecessary criticism and possible negative legal implications. CONCLUSION: We challenge the use of relative blood loss benchmarks in textbooks and practical casework and advocate for its elimination from the ATLSⓇ 's grading system. If necessary, we recommend the use of BMI-adjusted algorithms for TBV estimation.

Pre-hospital modified shock index for prediction of massive transfusion and mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Modified shock index (MSI) is a useful predictor in trauma patients. However, the value of prehospital MSI (preMSI) in trauma patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of preMSI in predicting massive transfusion (MT) and hospital mortality among trauma patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study. Patients presenting consecutively to the trauma center between January 2016 and December 2017, were included. The predictive ability of both prehospital shock index (preSI) and preMSI for MT and hospital mortality was assessed by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: A total of 1007 patients were included. Seventy-eight (7.7%) patients received MT, and 30 (3.0%) patients died within 24 h of admission to the trauma center. The AUROCs for predicting MT with preSI and preMSI were 0.773 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.746-0.798) and 0.765 (95% CI, 0.738-0.791), respectively. The AUROCs for predicting 24-hour mortality with preSI and preMSI were 0.584 (95% CI, 0.553-0.615) and 0.581 (95% CI, 0.550-0.612), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PreSI and preMSI showed moderate accuracy in predicting MT. PreMSI did not have higher predictive power than preSI. Additionally, in predicting hospital mortality, preMSI was not superior to preSI.

Validating the ATLS Shock Classification for Predicting Death, Transfusion, or Urgent Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) shock classification has been accepted as the conceptual framework for clinicians caring for trauma patients. We sought to validate its ability to predict mortality, blood transfusion, and urgent intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of trauma patients using the 2014 National Trauma Data Bank. Using initial vital signs data, patients were categorized into shock class based on the ATLS program. Rates for urgent blood transfusion, urgent operative intervention, and mortality were compared between classes. RESULTS: 630,635 subjects were included for analysis. Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 included 312,404, 17,133, 31, and 43 patients, respectively. 300,754 patients did not meet criteria for any ATLS shock class. Of the patients in class 1 shock, 2653 died (0.9%), 3123 (1.0%) were transfused blood products, and 7115 (2.3%) underwent an urgent procedure. In class 2, 219 (1.3%) died, 387 (2.3%) were transfused, and 1575 (9.2%) underwent intervention. In class 3, 7 (22.6%) died, 10 (32.3%) were transfused, and 13 (41.9%) underwent intervention. In class 4, 15 (34.9%) died, 19 (44.2%) were transfused, and 23 (53.5%) underwent intervention. For uncategorized patients, 21,356 (7.1%) died, 15,168 (5.0%) were transfused, and 23,844 (7.9%) underwent intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of trauma patients do not meet criteria for any ATLS shock class. Uncategorized patients had a higher mortality (7.1%) than patients in classes 1 and 2 (0.9% and 1.3%, respectively). Classes 3 and 4 only accounted for 0.005% and 0.007%, respectively, of patients. The ATLS classification system does not help identify many patients in severe shock.

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.

Shock index as a predictor of hospital admission and inpatient mortality in a US national database of emergency departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The shock index (SI), defined as the ratio of the heart rate (HR) to the systolic blood pressure (BP), is used as a prognostic tool in trauma and in specific disease states. However, there is scarcity of data about the utility of the SI in the general emergency department (ED)population. Our goal was to use a large national database of EDs in the United States (US) to determine whether the likelihood of inpatient mortality and hospital admission was associated with initial SI at presentation. METHODS: Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were retrospectively reviewed to obtain a weighted sample of all US ED visits between 2005 and 2010. All adults >18 years old who survived the ED visit were included, regardless of their chief complaint. Likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for a range of SI values, in order to determine SI thresholds most predictive of hospital admission and inpatient mortality. +LRs >5 were considered to be clinically significant. RESULTS: A total of 526 455 251 adult patient encounters were included in the analysis. 56.9% were women, 73.9% were white and 53.2% were between the ages of 18 and 44 years. 88 326 638 (15.7%) unique ED visits resulted in hospital admission and 1 927 235 (2.6%) visits resulted in inpatient mortality. SI>1.3 was associated with a clinically significant increase in both the likelihood of hospital admission (+LR=6.64) and inpatient mortality (+LR=5.67). SI>0.7 and >0.9, the traditional cited cut-offs, were only associated with marginal increases (+LR= 1.13; 1.54 for SI>0.7 and +LR=1.95; 2.59 for SI>0.9 for hospital admission and inpatient mortality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this largest retrospective study to date on SI in the general ED population, we demonstrated that initial SI at presentation to the ED could potentially be useful in predicting the likelihood of hospital admission and inpatient mortality, which could help guide rapid and accurate acuity designation, resource allocation and disposition.

Shock - Classification and Pathophysiological Principles of Therapeutics.

The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.

The Nomenclature, Definition and Distinction of Types of Shock.

BACKGROUND: A severe mismatch between the supply and demand of oxygen is the common feature of all types of shock. We present a newly developed, clinically oriented classification of the various types of shock and their therapeutic implications. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications (1990-2018) retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, and on the relevant guidelines and meta-analyses. RESULTS: There are only four major categories of shock, each of which is mainly related to one of four organ systems. Hypovolemic shock relates to the blood and fluids compartment while distributive shock relates to the vascular system; cardiogenic shock arises from primary cardiac dysfunction; and obstructive shock arises from a blockage of the circulation. Hypovolemic shock is due to intravascular volume loss and is treated by fluid replacement with balanced crystalloids. Distributive shock, on the other hand, is a state of relative hypovolemia resulting from pathological redistribution of the absolute intravascular volume and is treated with a combination of vasoconstrictors and fluid replacement. Cardiogenic shock is due to inadequate function of the heart, which shall be treated, depending on the situation, with drugs, surgery, or other interventional procedures. In obstructive shock, hypoperfusion due to elevated resistance shall be treated with an immediate life-saving intervention. CONCLUSION: The new classification is intended to facilitate the goal-driven treatment of shock in both the pre-hospital and the inpatient setting. A uniform treatment strategy should be established for each of the four types of shock.

Shock subtypes by left ventricular ejection fraction following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Post-resuscitation hemodynamic instability following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may occur from myocardial dysfunction underlying cardiogenic shock and/or inflammation-mediated distributive shock. Distinguishing the predominant shock subtype with widely available clinical metrics may have prognostic and therapeutic value. METHODS: A two-hospital cohort was assembled of patients in shock following OHCA. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed via echocardiography or cardiac ventriculography within 1 day post arrest and used to delineate shock physiology. The study evaluated whether higher LVEF, indicating distributive-predominant shock physiology, was associated with neurocognitive outcome (primary endpoint), survival, and duration of multiple organ failures. The study also investigated whether volume resuscitation exhibited a subtype-specific association with outcome. RESULTS: Of 162 patients with post-resuscitation shock, 48% had normal LVEF (> 40%), consistent with distributive shock physiology. Higher LVEF was associated with less favorable neurocognitive outcome (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94 per 10% increase in LVEF; p = 0.01). Higher LVEF also was associated with worse survival (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02) and fewer organ failure-free days (ß = - 0.67, 95% CI - 1.28 to - 0.06; p = 0.03). Only 51% of patients received a volume challenge of at least 30 ml/kg body weight in the first 6 h post arrest, and the volume received did not differ by LVEF. Greater volume resuscitation in the first 6 h post arrest was associated with favorable neurocognitive outcome (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99-2.55 per liter; p = 0.03) and survival (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.04; p = 0.02) among patients with normal LVEF but not low LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: In post-resuscitation shock, higher LVEF-indicating distributive shock physiology-was associated with less favorable neurocognitive outcome, fewer days without organ failure, and higher mortality. Greater early volume resuscitation was associated with more favorable neurocognitive outcome and survival in patients with this shock subtype. Additional studies with repeated measures of complementary hemodynamic parameters are warranted to validate the clinical utility for subtyping post-resuscitation shock.

Predicción de hemorragia masiva. Índice de shock e índice de shock modificado / Prediction of massive bleeding. Shock index and modified shock index

Objetivo: Determinar la capacidad de predicción del índice de shock y del índice de shock modificado para hemorragia masiva tras sufrir un trauma grave. Diseño: Cohorte retrospectiva. Ámbito: Atención inicial hospitalaria al paciente con enfermedad traumática grave en una unidad de cuidados intensivos de trauma de un hospital terciario. Sujetos: Pacientes mayores de 14 años con trauma grave (injury severity score [ISS] >15), admitidos de forma consecutiva desde enero de 2014 hasta diciembre de 2015. Variables: Se estudiaron sensibilidad (Se), especificidad (Sp), valores predictivos positivo y negativo (VP+ y VP-), razones de verosimilitud positiva y negativa (RV+ y RV-), curvas ROC (receiver operating characteristics) y el área bajo las mismas (AUROC) para predicción de hemorragia masiva. Resultados: Se incluyeron 287 pacientes, el 76,31% (219) fueron varones, con una edad media de 43,36 (±17,71) e ISS de 26 (rango intercuartil [RIC]: 21-34). La frecuencia global de hemorragia masiva fue de 8,71% (25). Para el índice de shock se obtuvo: AUROC de 0,89 (intervalo de confianza [IC] 95%: 0,84-0,94), con un punto de corte óptimo en 1,11, Se del 91,3% (IC 95%: 73,2-97,58) y Sp del 79,69% (IC 95%: 74,34-84,16). Para el índice de shock modificado se obtuvo: AUROC de 0,90 (IC 95%: 0,86-0,95), con un punto de corte óptimo en 1,46, Se del 95,65% (IC 95%: 79,01-99,23) y Sp del 75,78% (IC 95%: 70,18-80,62). Conclusiones: El índice de shock y el índice de shock modificado son buenos predictores de hemorragia masiva y de fácil aplicación durante la atención inicial del trauma grave (AU)

Objective: To determine the predictive value of the Shock Index and Modified Shock Index in patients with massive bleeding due to severe trauma. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Severe trauma patient's initial attention at the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. Subjects: Patients older than 14 years that were admitted to the hospital with severe trauma (Injury Severity Score >15) form January 2014 to December 2015. Variables: We studied the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive value (PV+ and PV-), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR-), ROC curves (Receiver Operating Characteristics) and the area under the same (AUROC) for prediction of massive hemorrhage. Results: 287 patients were included, 76.31% (219) were male, mean age was 43,36 (±17.71) years and ISS was 26 (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-34). The overall frequency of massive bleeding was 8.71% (25). For Shock Index: AUROC was 0.89 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.84 to 0.94), with an optimal cutoff at 1.11, Se was 91.3% (95% CI: 73.2 to 97.58) and Sp was 79.69% (95% CI: 74.34 to 84.16). For the Modified Shock Index: AUROC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.95), with an optimal cutoff at 1.46, Se was 95.65% (95% CI: 79.01 to 99.23) and Sp was 75.78% (95% CI: 70.18 to 80.62). Conclusion: Shock Index and Modified Shock Index are good predictors of massive bleeding and could be easily incorporated to the initial workup of patients with severe trauma (AU)

Is the shock index based classification of hypovolemic shock applicable in multiple injured patients with severe traumatic brain injury?-an analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

BACKGROUND: A new classification of hypovolemic shock based on the shock index (SI) was proposed in 2013. This classification contains four classes of shock and shows good correlation with acidosis, blood product need and mortality. Since their applicability was questioned, the aim of this study was to verify the validity of the new classification in multiple injured patients with traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2013, data from 40 888 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® were analysed. Patients were classified according to their initial SI at hospital admission (Class I: SI < 0.6, class II: SI ≥0.6 to <1.0, class III SI ≥1.0 to <1.4, class IV: SI ≥1.4). Patients with an additional severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3) were compared to patients without severe TBI. RESULTS: 16,760 multiple injured patients with TBI (AIShead ≥3) were compared to 24,128 patients without severe TBI. With worsening of SI class, mortality rate increased from 20 to 53% in TBI patients. Worsening SI classes were associated with decreased haemoglobin, platelet counts and Quick's values. The number of blood units transfused correlated with worsening of SI. Massive transfusion rates increased from 3% in class I to 46% in class IV. The accuracy for predicting transfusion requirements did not differ between TBI and Non TBI patients. DISCUSSION: The use of the SI based classification enables a quick assessment of patients in hypovolemic shock based on universally available parameters. Although the pathophysiology in TBI and Non TBI patients and early treatment methods such as the use of vasopressors differ, both groups showed an identical probability of recieving blood products within the respective SI class. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the presence of TBI, the classification of hypovolemic shock based on the SI enables a fast and reliable assessment of hypovolemic shock in the emergency department. Therefore, the presented study supports the SI as a feasible tool to assess patients at risk for blood product transfusions, even in the presence of severe TBI.