» Articles » PMID: 20842040

The Utility of Shock Index in Differentiating Major from Minor Injury

Overview
Journal Eur J Emerg Med
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2010 Sep 16
PMID 20842040
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The importance of early recognition of hemorrhagic shock and its effects on outcome have long been recognized. Traditional vital signs are relatively insensitive as early diagnostic markers of hemorrhage. The shock index (SI); heart rate (HR) divided by systolic blood pressure (SBP), has been suggested as such a marker. We tested the diagnostic utility of the SI in differentiating major from minor injury in trauma patients.

Methods: Retrospective study of a prospectively collected observational cohort at a level I trauma center. Demographics, injury mechanism, HR, SBP, base deficit and lactate were recorded and Injury Severity Score were calculated. Major injury was defined as either a change in hematocrit greater than 10 or blood transfusion requirement during initial 24 h, or Injury Severity Score greater than 15.

Results: One thousand four hundred and thirty-five trauma patients were enrolled, average age 35.2±16.9 years. Two hundred and forty-two were classified as major injury. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curves for SI [0.63 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.67] was significantly less than that for base deficit (0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.76) or lactate (0.69, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). The diagnostic performance of SI was slightly better than HR (0.58) but not SBP (0.61). To reach sensitivity of 90%, the SI must be 0.5, well in the range of a normal SBP and HR.

Conclusion: The SI can be a valuable tool, raising suspicion when it is abnormal even when other parameters are not, but is far too insensitive for use as a screening device to rule out disease. A normal SI should not lower the suspicion of major injury.

Citing Articles

Association between preoperative shock index and hypotension after spinal anesthesia for non-elective cesarean section: a prospective cohort study.

Silwal S, Subedi A, Bhattarai B, Ghimire A BMC Anesthesiol. 2024; 24(1):383.

PMID: 39443886 PMC: 11515677. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02766-5.


Superiority of compensatory reserve measurement compared with the Shock index for early and accurate detection of reduced central blood volume status.

Convertino V, Thompson P, Koons N, Le T, Lanier J, Cardin S J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023; 95(2S Suppl 1):S113-S119.

PMID: 37199525 PMC: 10389397. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004029.


Shock Index for Early Detection of Low Plasma Fibrinogen in Trauma: A Prospective Observational Cohort Pilot Study.

Skola J, Bilska M, Horakova M, Tegl V, Benes J, Skulec R J Clin Med. 2023; 12(4).

PMID: 36836242 PMC: 9966073. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041707.


Clinical impact of a prehospital trauma shock bundle of care in South Africa.

Mould-Millman N, Dixon J, van Ster B, Moreira F, Bester B, Cunningham C Afr J Emerg Med. 2022; 12(1):19-26.

PMID: 35004137 PMC: 8718736. DOI: 10.1016/j.afjem.2021.10.003.


The impact of maternal anemia and labor on the obstetric Shock Index in women in a developing country.

Rojas-Suarez J, Paternina-Caicedo A, Tolosa J, Guzman-Polania L, Gonzalez N, Pomares F Obstet Med. 2020; 13(2):83-87.

PMID: 32714440 PMC: 7359662. DOI: 10.1177/1753495X19837127.