Shock index - Wiley Online Library

7 downloads 281788 Views 199KB Size Report
tertiary referral centre were used to identify all women with blood loss of 1500 ..... loss becomes a less reliable assessment tool and SI may be a more useful .... 2006;26:445–7. 31 Sohn CH, Kim WY, Kim SR, Seo DW, Ryoo SM, Lee YS, et al.
General obstetrics

DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13206 www.bjog.org

Shock index: an effective predictor of outcome in postpartum haemorrhage? HL Nathan,a A El Ayadi,b NL Hezelgrave,a P Seed,a E Butrick,b S Miller,b A Briley,a S Bewley,a AH Shennana a Women’s Health Academic Centre, King’s College London, London, UK b Safe Motherhood Programs, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Correspondence: Prof AH Shennan, Women’s Health Academic Centre, King’s College London, 10th floor, North Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK. Email [email protected]

Accepted 16 October 2014.

Objectives To compare the predictive value of the shock index (SI)

with conventional vital signs in postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), and to establish ‘alert’ thresholds for use in low-resource settings. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting UK tertiary centre. Population Women with PPH ≥1500 ml (n = 233). Methods Systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, mean arterial

pressure, pulse pressure, heart rate (HR) and SI (HR/systolic BP) were measured within the first hour following PPH. Values measured at the time of highest SI were selected for analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for each parameter, used to predict admission to an intensive care unit and other adverse outcomes, was calculated. Sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive predictive values determined thresholds of the best predictor. Main outcome measures Intensive care unit (ICU) admission,

Results Shock index has the highest AUROC to predict ICU admissions (0.75 for SI [95% CI 0.63–0.87] compared with 0.64 [95% CI 0.44–0.83] for systolic BP). SI compared favourably for other outcomes: SI ≥0.9 had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 73.5–100) and 43.4% specificity (95% CI 36.8–50.3), and SI ≥1.7 had 25.0% sensitivity (95% CI 5.5–57.2) and 97.7% specificity (CI 94.8–99.3), for predicting ICU admission. Conclusions Shock index compared favourably with conventional

vital signs in predicting ICU admission and other outcomes in PPH, even after adjusting for confounding; SI