Marcos Valiente Fernández , Amanda Lesmes González de Aledo , Francisco de Paula Delgado Moya , Isaías Martín Badía , Elena Álvaro Valiente , Nerea Blanco Otaegui , Pablo Risco Torres , Ignacio Saéz de la Fuente , Silvia Chacón Alves , Lidia Orejón García , María Sánchez- Bayton Griffith , José Ángel Sánchez-Izquierdo Riera
{"title":"Shock Index and Physiological Stress Index for reestratifying patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism","authors":"Marcos Valiente Fernández , Amanda Lesmes González de Aledo , Francisco de Paula Delgado Moya , Isaías Martín Badía , Elena Álvaro Valiente , Nerea Blanco Otaegui , Pablo Risco Torres , Ignacio Saéz de la Fuente , Silvia Chacón Alves , Lidia Orejón García , María Sánchez- Bayton Griffith , José Ángel Sánchez-Izquierdo Riera","doi":"10.1016/j.medin.2023.10.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Study and Evaluation of Two Scores: Shock Index (SI) and Physiological Stress Index (PSI) as discriminators for proactive treatment (reperfusion before decompensated shock) in a population of intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Using a database from a retrospective cohort with clinical variables and the outcome variable of “proactive treatment”, a comparison of the populations was conducted. Optimal cut-off for “proactive treatment” points were obtained according to the SI and PSI. Comparisons were carried out based on the cut-off points of both indices.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Patients admitted to a mixed ICU for PE.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Patients >18 years old admitted to the ICU with intermediate-high risk PE recruited from January 2015 to October 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>None.</p></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><p>Population comparison and metrics regarding predictive capacity when determining proactive treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>SI and PSI independently have a substandard predictive capacity for discriminating patients who may benefit from an early reperfusion therapy. However, their combined use improves detection of sicker intermediate-high risk PE patients (Sensitivity = 0.66) in whom an early reperfusion therapy may improve outcomes (Specificity = 0.9).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The use of the SI and PSI in patients with intermediate-high risk PE could be useful for selecting patients who would benefit from proactive treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49268,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Intensiva","volume":"48 6","pages":"Pages 309-316"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0210569123003133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Study and Evaluation of Two Scores: Shock Index (SI) and Physiological Stress Index (PSI) as discriminators for proactive treatment (reperfusion before decompensated shock) in a population of intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE).
Design
Using a database from a retrospective cohort with clinical variables and the outcome variable of “proactive treatment”, a comparison of the populations was conducted. Optimal cut-off for “proactive treatment” points were obtained according to the SI and PSI. Comparisons were carried out based on the cut-off points of both indices.
Setting
Patients admitted to a mixed ICU for PE.
Participants
Patients >18 years old admitted to the ICU with intermediate-high risk PE recruited from January 2015 to October 2022.
Interventions
None.
Main variables of interest
Population comparison and metrics regarding predictive capacity when determining proactive treatment.
Results
SI and PSI independently have a substandard predictive capacity for discriminating patients who may benefit from an early reperfusion therapy. However, their combined use improves detection of sicker intermediate-high risk PE patients (Sensitivity = 0.66) in whom an early reperfusion therapy may improve outcomes (Specificity = 0.9).
Conclusions
The use of the SI and PSI in patients with intermediate-high risk PE could be useful for selecting patients who would benefit from proactive treatment.
研究和评估两种评分:将休克指数(SI)和生理应激指数(PSI)作为中高风险肺栓塞(PE)人群主动治疗(失代偿性休克前再灌注)的判别指标。设计利用回顾性队列数据库中的临床变量和 "主动治疗 "结果变量,对人群进行比较。根据 SI 和 PSI 得出了 "主动治疗 "的最佳临界点。研究对象2015年1月至2022年10月入住重症监护室的18岁中高风险PE患者.干预措施无.主要研究变量人群比较和确定主动治疗时的预测能力指标.结果SI和PSI对于区分可能从早期再灌注治疗中获益的患者的预测能力不达标。结论在中高风险 PE 患者中使用 SI 和 PSI 可以帮助选择从积极治疗中获益的患者。
期刊介绍:
Medicina Intensiva is the journal of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) and of Pan American and Iberian Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. Medicina Intensiva has become the reference publication in Spanish in its field. The journal mainly publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Clinical Notes, Consensus Documents, Images, and other information relevant to the specialty. All works go through a rigorous selection process. The journal accepts submissions of articles in English and in Spanish languages. The journal follows the publication requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).