Correlation Between Shock Index and Mortality in the Prehospital and Level 1 Rural Trauma Center Emergency Department Settings

Victoria Clancy, Matthew Leonard, Bracken Burns
{"title":"Correlation Between Shock Index and Mortality in the Prehospital and Level 1 Rural Trauma Center Emergency Department Settings","authors":"Victoria Clancy, Matthew Leonard, Bracken Burns","doi":"10.56068/tjao4623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The shock index is a valid tool used to detect impending circulatory collapse in the pre-hospital setting. As validation of the shock index requires high sample sizes, the majority of retrospective studies have been performed at urban level 1 trauma centers. We hypothesized that the shock index would accurately predict mortality in a rural level 1 trauma center.\nObjective - Determine if the shock index continues to be a reliable predictive value in trauma patients for morbidity and mortality. \nSetting - This retrospective study was performed at a state-designated level 1 trauma center in Johnson City, Tennessee. Patients were excluded from the study if they were under the age of 18, not immediately transported to the trauma center or if insufficient data was available. The shock index was calculated as heart rate/systolic blood pressure. Both the prehospital and emergency department shock indexes were calculated, with the emergency department vital signs being the first upon arrival. Patients were divided into three categories: SI ≤ 0.7, 0.71-0.89, and ≥ 0.9. We assessed the relationship between SI, blood product usage, and outcome variables using Pearson correlation coefficients and logistic regression. Chi-square analysis was used to show the difference in mortality between the groups.\nResults - A higher shock index score after arrival to the emergency department experienced longer hospital, intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation days, injury severity scores, packed red blood cells, plasma, platelets, and total blood product usage. Mortality was higher in the groups with an SI of ≥ 0.9 at the scene and arrival to the emergency department. \nConclusion - Patients with a shock index > 0.71-0.89 in both prehospital and emergency departments had higher mortality rates and need for transfusion. The shock index continues to be a reliable predictive value in trauma patients for morbidity and mortality. ","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/tjao4623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The shock index is a valid tool used to detect impending circulatory collapse in the pre-hospital setting. As validation of the shock index requires high sample sizes, the majority of retrospective studies have been performed at urban level 1 trauma centers. We hypothesized that the shock index would accurately predict mortality in a rural level 1 trauma center. Objective - Determine if the shock index continues to be a reliable predictive value in trauma patients for morbidity and mortality.  Setting - This retrospective study was performed at a state-designated level 1 trauma center in Johnson City, Tennessee. Patients were excluded from the study if they were under the age of 18, not immediately transported to the trauma center or if insufficient data was available. The shock index was calculated as heart rate/systolic blood pressure. Both the prehospital and emergency department shock indexes were calculated, with the emergency department vital signs being the first upon arrival. Patients were divided into three categories: SI ≤ 0.7, 0.71-0.89, and ≥ 0.9. We assessed the relationship between SI, blood product usage, and outcome variables using Pearson correlation coefficients and logistic regression. Chi-square analysis was used to show the difference in mortality between the groups. Results - A higher shock index score after arrival to the emergency department experienced longer hospital, intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation days, injury severity scores, packed red blood cells, plasma, platelets, and total blood product usage. Mortality was higher in the groups with an SI of ≥ 0.9 at the scene and arrival to the emergency department.  Conclusion - Patients with a shock index > 0.71-0.89 in both prehospital and emergency departments had higher mortality rates and need for transfusion. The shock index continues to be a reliable predictive value in trauma patients for morbidity and mortality. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院前和一级农村创伤中心急诊室休克指数与死亡率之间的相关性
背景:休克指数是用于检测院前环境中即将发生的循环衰竭的有效工具。由于休克指数的验证需要较高的样本量,因此大多数回顾性研究都是在城市一级创伤中心进行的。我们假设休克指数能准确预测农村一级创伤中心的死亡率。目的 - 确定休克指数是否仍能可靠地预测创伤患者的发病率和死亡率。环境 - 这项回顾性研究在田纳西州约翰逊市的一家国家指定的一级创伤中心进行。未满 18 岁、未立即送往创伤中心或数据不足的患者不在研究范围内。休克指数按心率/收缩压计算。院前和急诊科的休克指数都要计算,急诊科的生命体征是到达后的第一项。患者分为三类SI ≤ 0.7、0.71-0.89 和 ≥ 0.9。我们使用皮尔逊相关系数和逻辑回归评估了 SI、血液制品用量和结果变量之间的关系。结果 - 到达急诊科后休克指数评分越高,住院时间、重症监护室和机械通气天数、损伤严重程度评分、包装红细胞、血浆、血小板和血液制品总用量越长。现场和到达急诊科时休克指数≥ 0.9 的组别死亡率更高。结论 - 在院前和急诊科休克指数大于 0.71-0.89 的患者死亡率和输血需求都较高。休克指数仍然是创伤患者发病率和死亡率的可靠预测值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quantifying Threat or Challenge Response of Undergraduate Paramedicine Students During High-Stress Clinical Scenarios The State of Emergency Medical Services Clinician Mental Health in Virginia Demonstration of Doppler Ultrasound Pulse Detection by Trained Prehospital Personnel Influence of Rurality When Accessing Emergency Healthcare During Exacerbation of Asthma Paramedicine Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1