Delta Shock Index During Emergency Department Stay Is Associated With in Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients

Association of Shock Indices with Peri-Intubation Hypotension and Other Outcomes: A Sub-Study of the KEEP PACE Trial

BACKGROUND

Based on current evidence, there appears to be an association between peri-intubation hypotension and patient morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified shock indices as possible pre-intubation risk factors for peri-intubation hypotension. Thus, we sought to evaluate the association between shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), and diastolic shock index (DSI) and peri-intubation hypotension along with other outcomes.

METHODS

The present study is a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial involving critically ill patients undergoing intubation. We defined peri-intubation hypotension as a decrease in mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg and/or a reduction of 40% from baseline; or the initiation of, or increase in infusion dosage of, any vasopressor medication (bolus or infusion) during the 30-min period following intubation. SI, MSI, and DSI were analyzed as continuous variables and categorically using pre-established cut-offs. We also explored the effect of age on shock indices.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients were included in the analysis. Mean pre-intubation SI was 1.0  ±  0.3, MSI 1.5  ±  0.5, and DSI 1.9  ±  0.7. Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were significantly associated with peri-intubation hypotension (OR [95% CI] per 0.1 increase  =  1.16 [1.04, 1.30], P  =  .009 for SI; 1.14 [1.05, 1.24], P  =  .003 for MSI; and 1.11 [1.04, 1.19], P  =  .003 for DSI). The area under the ROC curves did not differ across shock indices (0.66 vs 0.67 vs 0.69 for SI, MSI, and DSI respectively; P  =  .586). Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were significantly associated with worse sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (spearman rank correlation: r  =  0.30, r  =  0.40, and r  =  0.45 for SI, MSI, and DSI, respectively, all P < .001) but not with other outcomes. There was no significant impact when incorporating age.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were all significantly associated with peri-intubation hypotension and worse SOFA scores but not with other outcomes. Shock indices remain a useful bedside tool to assess the potential likelihood of peri-intubation hypotension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT02105415.

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. A shock index (SI), modified SI (MSI), delta-SI, and shock index-C (SIC) are known predictors of STEMI. This retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the predictive value of the SI, MSI, delta-SI, and SIC with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scales. Method: Patients > 20 years old with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Youden index was performed to calculate the optimal cutoff values for these predictors. Results: Overall, 1552 adult STEMI cases were analyzed. The thresholds for the emergency department (ED) SI, MSI, SIC, and TIMI risk scales for in-hospital mortality were 0.75, 0.97, 21.00, and 5.5, respectively. Accordingly, ED SIC had better predictive power than the ED SI and ED MSI. The predictive power was relatively higher than TIMI risk scales, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. After adjusting for confounding factors, the ED SI > 0.75, MSI > 0.97, SIC > 21.0, and TIMI risk scales > 5.5 were statistically and significantly associated with in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Compared with the ED SI and MSI, SIC (>21.0) had better sensitivity (67.2%, 95% CI, 58.6−75.9%), specificity (83.5%, 95% CI, 81.6−85.4%), PPV (24.8%, 95% CI, 20.2−29.6%), and NPV (96.9%, 95% CI, 96.0−97.9%) for in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Conclusions: SIC had better discrimination ability than the SI, MSI, and delta-SI. Compared with the TIMI risk scales, the ACU value of SIC was still higher. Therefore, SIC might be a convenient and rapid tool for predicting the outcome of STEMI.

Effects of growth trajectory of shock index within 24 h on the prognosis of patients with sepsis

Background

Sepsis is a serious disease with high clinical morbidity and mortality. Despite the tremendous advances in medicine and nursing, treatment of sepsis remains a huge challenge. Our purpose was to explore the effects of shock index (SI) trajectory changes on the prognosis of patients within 24 h after the diagnosis of sepsis.

Methods

This study was based on Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC- IV). The effects of SI on the prognosis of patients with sepsis were investigated using C-index and restricted cubic spline (RCS). The trajectory of SI in 24 h after sepsis diagnosis was classified by latent growth mixture modeling (LGMM). Cox proportional hazard model, double robust analysis, and subgroup analysis were conducted to investigate the influence of SI trajectory on in-hospital death and secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 19,869 patients were eventually enrolled in this study. C-index showed that SI had a prognostic value independent of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for patients with sepsis. Moreover, the results of RCS showed that SI was a prognostic risk factor. LGMM divided SI trajectory into seven classes, and patients with sepsis in different classes had notable differences in prognosis. Compared with the SI continuously at a low level of 0.6, the SI continued to be at a level higher than 1.0, and the patients in the class whose initial SI was at a high level of 1.2 and then declined had a worse prognosis. Furthermore, the trajectory of SI had a higher prognostic value than the initial SI.

Conclusion

Both initial SI and trajectory of SI were found to be independent factors that affect the prognosis of patients with sepsis. Therefore, in clinical treatment, we should closely monitor the basic vital signs of patients and arrive at appropriate clinical decisions on basis of their change trajectory.

Association between Shock Index and Emergency Department Cardiac Arrest

Background

In the emergency department (ED), early identification of patients at risk of cardiac arrest is paramount, especially in the context of overcrowding. The shock index (SI) is defined as the ratio of heart rate to systolic blood pressure. It is a tool used for predicting the prognosis of critically ill and injured patients. In this study, we have discussed the relationship between SI and cardiac arrest in the ED.

Methods

Patients who experienced cardiac arrest in the ED were classified into two groups, SI ≥ 0.9 and < 0.9, according to their triage vital signs. The association between SI ≥ 0.9 and in-hospital mortality was analyzed in five different etiologies of cardiac arrest, including hypoxia, cardiac cause, bleeding, sepsis, and other metabolic problems.

Results

In total, 3,313 patients experienced cardiac arrest in the ED. Among them, 1,909 (57.6%) had a SI of ≥0.9. The incidence of SI ≥ 0.9 in the five etiologies was 43.5% (hypoxia), 58.1% (cardiac cause), 56.1% (bleeding), 58.0% (sepsis), and 65.5% (other metabolic problems). SI was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5–1.8). The aOR (CI) in the five etiologies was 1.3 (1.1–1.6) for hypoxia, 1.8 (1.6–2.1) for cardiac cause, 1.3 (0.98–1.7) for bleeding, 1.3 (1.03–1.6) for sepsis, and 1.9 (1.5–2.1) for other metabolic problems.

Conclusion

More than half of the patients who experienced cardiac arrest in the ED had a SI ≥ 0.9. The SI was also associated with in-hospital mortality after cardiac arrest in the ED. SI maybe used as a screening tool to identify patients at risk of cardiac arrest in the ED and a predictor of mortality in those experiencing cardiac arrest in the ED.

A Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled Phase III Study of Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) as a Resuscitative Agent in Hypovolemic Shock Patients

Introduction

Centhaquine (Lyfaquin^®) showed significant safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies.

Methods

A prospective, multicentric, randomized phase III study was conducted in patients with hypovolemic shock, systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mmHg, and blood lactate levels ≥ 2 mmol/L. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the centhaquine group (n = 71) or the control (saline) group (n = 34). Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. The study drug (normal saline or centhaquine 0.01 mg/kg) was administered in 100 mL of normal saline infusion over 1 h. The primary objectives were to determine changes (mean through 48 h) in SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood lactate levels, and base deficit. The secondary objectives included the amount of fluids, blood products, and vasopressors administered in the first 48 h, duration of hospital stay, time in intensive care units, time on ventilator support, change in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), and the proportion of patients with 28-day all-cause mortality.

Results

The demographics of patients and baseline vitals in both groups were comparable. The cause of hypovolemic shock was trauma in 29.4 and 47.1% of control group and centhaquine group patients, respectively, and gastroenteritis in 44.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Shock index (SI) and quick sequential organ failure assessment at baseline were similar in the two groups. An equal amount of fluids and blood products were administered in both groups during the first 48 h of resuscitation. A lesser amount of vasopressors was needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation in the centhaquine group. An increase in SBP from baseline was consistently higher up to 48 h (12.9% increase in area under the curve from 0 to 48 h [AUC_0–48]) in the centhaquine group than in the control group. A significant increase in pulse pressure (48.1% increase in AUC_0–48) in the centhaquine group compared with the control group suggests improved stroke volume due to centhaquine. The SI was significantly lower in the centhaquine group from 1 h (p = 0.032) to 4 h (p = 0.049) of resuscitation. Resuscitation with centhaquine resulted in a significantly greater number of patients with improved blood lactate (control 46.9%; centhaquine 69.3%; p = 0.03) and the base deficit (control 43.7%; centhaquine 69.8%; p = 0.01) than in the control group. ARDS and MODS improved with centhaquine, and an 8.8% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was observed in the centhaquine group.

Conclusion

Centhaquine is an efficacious resuscitative agent for treating hypovolemic shock. The efficacy of centhaquine in distributive shock is being explored.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry, India; ctri.icmr.org.in, CTRI/2019/01/017196; clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04045327.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01547-5.

Shock Index, Pediatric Age-Adjusted Predicts Morbidity and Mortality in Children Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

Background: The shock index, pediatric age-adjusted (SIPA), defined as the maximum normal heart rate divided by the minimum normal systolic blood pressure by age, can help predict the risk of morbidity and mortality after pediatric trauma. This study investigated whether the SIPA can be used as an early index of prognosis for non-traumatic children visiting the pediatric emergency department (ED) and were directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We hypothesized that an increase in SIPA values in the first 24 h of ICU admission would correlate with mortality and adverse outcomes. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study enrolled non-traumatic patients aged 1-17 years who presented to the pediatric ED and were directly admitted to the ICU from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, in Taiwan. The SIPA value was calculated at the time of arrival at the ED and 24 h after ICU admission. Cutoffs included SIPA values >1.2 (patient age: 1-6), >1.0 (patient age: 7-12), and >0.9 (patient age: 12-17). The utility of the SIPA and the trends in the SIPA during the first 24 h of ICU admission were analyzed to predict outcomes. Results: In total, 1,732 patients were included. Of these, 1,050 (60.6%) were under 6 years old, and the median Pediatric Risk of Mortality score was 7 (5-10). In total, 4.7% of the patients died, 12.9% received mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and 11.1% received inotropic support. The SIPA value at 24 h after admission was associated with increased mortality [odds ratio (OR): 4.366, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.392-7.969, p < 0.001], MV support (OR: 1.826, 95% CI: 1.322-2.521, p < 0.001), inotropic support (OR: 2.306, 95% CI: 1.599-3.326, p < 0.001), and a long hospital length of stay (HLOS) (2.903 days, 95% CI: 1.734-4.271, p < 0.001). Persistent abnormal SIPA value was associated with increased mortality (OR: 2.799, 95% CI: 1.566-5.001, p = 0.001), MV support (OR: 1.457, 95% CI: 1.015-2.092, p = 0.041), inotropic support (OR: 1.875, 95% CI: 1.287-2.833, p = 0.001), and a long HLOS (3.2 days, 95% CI: 1.9-4.6, p < 0.001). Patients with abnormal to normal SIPA values were associated with decreased mortality (OR: 0.258, 95% CI: 0.106-0.627, p = 0.003), while patients with normal to abnormal SIPA values were associated with increased mortality (OR: 3.055, 95% CI: 1.472-5.930, p = 0.002). Conclusions: In non-traumatic children admitted to the ICU from the ED, increased SIPA values at 24 h after ICU admission predicted high mortality and bad outcomes. Monitoring the trends in the SIPA could help with prognostication and optimize early management.