Use of prehospital reverse shock index times Glasgow Coma Scale to identify children who require the most immediate trauma care

Markers of Futile Resuscitation in Traumatic Hemorrhage: A Review of the Evidence and a Proposal for Futility Time-Outs during Massive Transfusion

The reduction in the blood supply following the 2019 coronavirus pandemic has been exacerbated by the increased use of balanced resuscitation with blood components including whole blood in urban trauma centers. This reduction of the blood supply has diminished the ability of blood banks to maintain a constant supply to meet the demands associated with periodic surges of urban trauma resuscitation. This scarcity has highlighted the need for increased vigilance through blood product stewardship, particularly among severely bleeding trauma patients (SBTPs). This stewardship can be enhanced by the identification of reliable clinical and laboratory parameters which accurately indicate when massive transfusion is futile. Consequently, there has been a recent attempt to develop scoring systems in the prehospital and emergency department settings which include clinical, laboratory, and physiologic parameters and blood products per hour transfused as predictors of futile resuscitation. Defining futility in SBTPs, however, remains unclear, and there is only nascent literature which defines those criteria which reliably predict futility in SBTPs. The purpose of this review is to provide a focused examination of the literature in order to define reliable parameters of futility in SBTPs. The knowledge of these reliable parameters of futility may help define a foundation for drawing conclusions which will provide a clear roadmap for traumatologists when confronted with SBTPs who are candidates for the declaration of futility. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature regarding the definition of futile resuscitation for patients with trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock, and we propose a concise roadmap for clinicians to help them use well-defined clinical, laboratory, and viscoelastic parameters which can define futility.

Shock index and shock index, pediatric age-adjusted as predictors of mortality in pediatric patients with trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the predictive ability of the shock index (SI) and the shock index, pediatric age-adjusted (SIPA) for mortality among pediatric patients with trauma (aged ≤ 18 years). A systematic search used PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify pertinent articles published from their inception to 13 February 2023. For each SI and SIPA, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We planned a priori meta-regression analyses to explore heterogeneity using the following covariates: country, clinical setting, type of center, data source, and cutoff value. Twelve studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Among them, nine studies with 195,469 patients were included for the SIPA at the hospital, four studies with 4,970 patients were included for the pre-hospital SIPA, and seven studies with 606,445 patients were included to assess the ability of the SI in predicting mortality. The pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval for predicting mortality were as follows: 0.58 (0.44-0.70) and 0.72 (0.60-0.82), respectively, for the SIPA at the hospital; 0.61 (0.47-0.74) and 0.67 (0.61-0.73), respectively, for the pre-hospital SIPA; and 0.71 (0.59-0.81) and 0.45 (0.31-0.59), respectively for the SI. The DOR were 3.80, 3.28, and 2.06 for the SIPA at the hospital, pre-hospital SIPA, and SI, respectively. The AUC were 0.693, 0.689, and 0.618 for the SIPA at the hospital, pre-hospital SIPA, and SI, respectively. The SI and SIPA are simple predictive tools with sufficient accuracy that can be readily applied to pediatric patients with trauma, but SIPA and SI should be utilized cautiously due to their limited sensitivity and specificity, respectively.

Reverse shock index multiplied by simplified motor score as a predictor of clinical outcomes for patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The reverse shock index (rSI) combined with the Simplified Motor Score (sMS), that is, the rSI-sMS, is a novel and efficient prehospital triage scoring system for patients with COVID-19. In this study, we evaluated the predictive accuracy of the rSI-sMS for general ward and intensive care unit (ICU) admission among patients with COVID-19 and compared it with that of other measures, including the shock index (SI), modified SI (mSI), rSI combined with the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSI-GCS), and rSI combined with the GCS motor subscale (rSI-GCSM).

METHODS

All patients who visited the emergency department of Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital between January 2021 and June 2022 were included in this retrospective cohort. A diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed through a SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or SARS-CoV-2 rapid test with oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs and was double confirmed by checking International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes in electronic medical records. In-hospital mortality was regarded as the primary outcome, and sepsis, general ward or ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, and total hospital length of stay (LOS) were regarded as secondary outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between the scoring systems and the three major outcomes of patients with COVID-19, including. The discriminant ability of the predictive scoring systems was investigated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the most favorable cutoff value of the rSI-sMS for each major outcome was determined using Youden's index.

RESULTS

After 74,183 patients younger than 20 years (n = 11,572) and without COVID-19 (n = 62,611) were excluded, 9,282 patients with COVID-19 (median age: 45 years, interquartile range: 33-60 years, 46.1% men) were identified as eligible for inclusion in the study. The rate of in-hospital mortality was determined to be 0.75%. The rSI-sMS scores were significantly lower in the patient groups with sepsis, hyperlactatemia, admission to a general ward, admission to the ICU, total length of stay ≥ 14 days, and mortality. Compared with the SI, mSI, and rSI-GCSM, the rSI-sMS exhibited a significantly higher accuracy for predicting general ward admission, ICU admission, and mortality but a similar accuracy to that of the rSI-GCS. The optimal cutoff values of the rSI-sMS for predicting general ward admission, ICU admission, and mortality were calculated to be 3.17, 3.45, and 3.15, respectively, with a predictive accuracy of 86.83%, 81.94%%, and 90.96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the SI, mSI, and rSI-GCSM, the rSI-sMS has a higher predictive accuracy for general ward admission, ICU admission, and mortality among patients with COVID-19.