OBJECTIVE: Reliance on traditional vital signs (TVS), particularly in older patients, to identify life-threatening shock after injury may be unreliable. Shock index (SI), defined as heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure (SBP), may be a better indicator of early shock after injury than TVS. Multiplying age by SI (age x SI) may be better in older injured patients. We hypothesized that age x SI would be a better predictor of 48-hour mortality in old patients (age, >55 years) compared with TVS, whereas for young patients (age, <or=55 years), SI would be a better predictor than TVS. METHODS: Version 8.1 of the National Trauma Data Bank was queried for incidents of blunt, non-neurologic injury occurring during 2007, to patients aged 18 to 81 years. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were compared for TVS, SI, and age x SI in young and old patients for predicting 48-hour mortality. RESULTS: A total of 189,574 incidents were identified. Overall 48-hour mortality was 1.18%. For young patients, there was no difference between SBP (AUC, 0.654) and SI (AUC, 0.655) for predicting 48-hour mortality. For old patients, age x SI (AUC, 0.693) was a better predictor of 48-hour mortality compared with heart rate (AUC, 0.626; p < 0.0001), SBP (AUC, 0.657; p < 0.0002), or SI (AUC, 0.684; p < 0.008). CONCLUSION: TVS are inadequate predictors of shock after non-neurologic blunt injury. Using SI in the young and age x SI in old to identify patients at risk for early mortality after blunt injury could result in earlier definitive treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Reliance on traditional vital signs (TVS), particularly in older patients, to identify life-threatening shock after injury may be unreliable. Shock index (SI), defined as heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure (SBP), may be a better indicator of early shock after injury than TVS. Multiplying age by SI (age x SI) may be better in older injured patients. We hypothesized that age x SI would be a better predictor of 48-hour mortality in old patients (age, >55 years) compared with TVS, whereas for young patients (age, <or=55 years), SI would be a better predictor than TVS. METHODS: Version 8.1 of the National Trauma Data Bank was queried for incidents of blunt, non-neurologic injury occurring during 2007, to patients aged 18 to 81 years. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were compared for TVS, SI, and age x SI in young and old patients for predicting 48-hour mortality. RESULTS: A total of 189,574 incidents were identified. Overall 48-hour mortality was 1.18%. For young patients, there was no difference between SBP (AUC, 0.654) and SI (AUC, 0.655) for predicting 48-hour mortality. For old patients, age x SI (AUC, 0.693) was a better predictor of 48-hour mortality compared with heart rate (AUC, 0.626; p < 0.0001), SBP (AUC, 0.657; p < 0.0002), or SI (AUC, 0.684; p < 0.008). CONCLUSION:TVS are inadequate predictors of shock after non-neurologic blunt injury. Using SI in the young and age x SI in old to identify patients at risk for early mortality after blunt injury could result in earlier definitive treatment.
Authors: Adil H Haider; Taimur Saleem; Jeffrey J Leow; Cassandra V Villegas; Mehreen Kisat; Eric B Schneider; Elliott R Haut; Kent A Stevens; Edward E Cornwell; Ellen J MacKenzie; David T Efron Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Zachary D W Dezman; Angela C Comer; Gordon S Smith; Peter F Hu; Colin F Mackenzie; Thomas M Scalea; Jon Mark Hirshon Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Derek Richardson; James F Holmes; Thomas D Rea; Renee Y Hsia; N Clay Mann; Kristan Staudenmayer; Erik D Barton; Eileen M Bulger; Jason S Haukoos Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Kristin M Salottolo; Charles W Mains; Patrick J Offner; Pamela W Bourg; David Bar-Or Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Manuel Mutschler; Ulrike Nienaber; Matthias Münzberg; Christoph Wölfl; Herbert Schoechl; Thomas Paffrath; Bertil Bouillon; Marc Maegele Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Soon Yong Kim; Ki Jeong Hong; Sang Do Shin; Young Sun Ro; Ki Ok Ahn; Yu Jin Kim; Eui Jung Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Hao Wang; Johnbosco Umejiego; Richard D Robinson; Chet D Schrader; JoAnna Leuck; Michael Barra; Stefan Buca; Andrew Shedd; Andrew Bui; Nestor R Zenarosa Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2016-07-01