Utility of shock index in 24,636 patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome

被引:14
作者
El-Menyar, Ayman [1 ,2 ]
Al Habib, Khalid F. [3 ]
Zubaid, Mohammad [4 ]
Alsheikh-Ali, Alawi A. [5 ]
Sulaiman, Kadhim [6 ]
Almahmeed, Wael [7 ]
Amin, Haitham [8 ]
AlMotarreb, Ahmed [9 ]
Ullah, Anhar [3 ]
Al Suwaidi, Jassim [10 ]
机构
[1] Weill Cornel Med Coll, Clin Med, Doha, Qatar
[2] Hamad Gen Hosp, Clin Res, Doha, Qatar
[3] King Saud Univ, Coll Med, King Fahad Cardiac Ctr, Dept Cardiac Sci, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
[4] Kuwait Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med, Kuwait, Kuwait
[5] Mohammed Bin Rashid Univ Med & Hlth Sci, Coll Med, Dubai, U Arab Emirates
[6] Royal Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Muscat, Oman
[7] Cleveland Clin, Heart & Vasc Inst, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates
[8] Mohammed Bin Khalifa Cardiac Ctr, Dept Cardiol, Manamah, Bahrain
[9] Sanaa Univ, Fac Med, Dept Cardiol, Sanaa, Yemen
[10] Hamad Med Corp, Cardiol Dept, Heart Hosp, Doha, Qatar
关键词
Shock index; acute coronary syndrome; cardiogenic shock; heart failure; myocardial infarction; ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; HEART-FAILURE; RISK INDEX; PREDICTOR; OUTCOMES; MORTALITY; MANAGEMENT; PARAMETER;
D O I
10.1177/2048872619886307
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Shock index is a bedside reflection of integrated response of the cardiovascular and nervous systems. We aimed to evaluate the utility of shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: We analyzed pooled data from seven Arabian Gulf registries; these ACS registries were carried out in seven countries (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen) between 2005 and 2017. A standard uniform coding strategy was used to recode each database using each registry protocol and clinical research form. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their initial shock index (low vs. high shock index). Optimal shock index cutoff was determined according to the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Results: A total of 24,636 ACS patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean age 57 +/- 13 years. Based on ROC analysis, the optimal shock index was 0.80 (83.5% had shock index <0.80 and 16.5% had shock index >= 0.80). In patients with high shock index, 55% had ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 45% had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients with high shock index were more likely to have diabetes mellitus, late presentation, door to electrocardiogram >10 min, symptom to Emergency Department > 3 h, anterior myocardial infarction, impaired left ventricular function, no reperfusion post-therapy, recurrent ischemia/myocardial infarction, tachyarrhythmia and stroke. However, high shock index was associated significantly with less chest pain, less thrombolytic therapy and less primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Shock index correlated significantly with pulse pressure (r= -0.52), mean arterial pressure (r= -0.48), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (r =0.41) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction simple risk index (r= -0.59). Shock index >= 0.80 predicted mortality in ACS with 49% sensitivity, 85% specificity, 97.6% negative predictive value and 0.6 negative likelihood ratio. Multivariate regression analysis showed that shock index was an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.40, p<0.001), heart failure (aOR 1.67, p<0.001) and cardiogenic shock (aOR 3.70, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although shock index is the least accurate of the ones tested, its simplicity may argue in favor of its use for early risk stratification in patients with ACS. The utility of shock index is equally good for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. High shock index identifies patients at increased risk of in-hospital mortality and urges physicians in the Emergency Department to use aggressive management.
引用
收藏
页码:546 / 556
页数:11
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [21] Gender Disparities in the Presentation, Management and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Data from the 2nd Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2)
    Shehab, Abdulla
    Al-Dabbagh, Bayan
    AlHabib, Khalid F.
    Alsheikh-Ali, Alawi A.
    Almahmeed, Wael
    Sulaiman, Kadhim
    Al-Motarreb, Ahmed
    Nagelkerke, Nicolaas
    Al Suwaidi, Jassim
    Hersi, Ahmad
    Al Faleh, Hussam
    Asaad, Nidal
    Al Saif, Shukri
    Amin, Haitham
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (02):
  • [22] Shock-index as a novel predictor of long-term outcome following primary percutaneous coronary intervention
    Spyridopoulos, Ioakim
    Noman, Awsan
    Ahmed, Javed M.
    Das, Raj
    Edwards, Richard
    Purcell, Ian
    Bagnall, Alan
    Zaman, Azfar
    Egred, Mohaned
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-ACUTE CARDIOVASCULAR CARE, 2015, 4 (03) : 270 - 277
  • [23] Supreme Council of Health (SCH), 2014, QAT HLTH REP 2013
  • [24] Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk Index predicts long-term mortality and heart failure in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the TIMI 2 clinical trial
    Truong, Quynh A.
    Cannon, Christopher P.
    Zakai, Neil A.
    Rogers, Ian S.
    Giugliano, Robert P.
    Wiviott, Stephen D.
    McCabe, Carolyn H.
    Morrow, David A.
    Braunwald, Eugene
    [J]. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2009, 157 (04) : 673 - 679
  • [25] Derivation and Validation of Shock Index as a parameter for Predicting Long-term Prognosis in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome
    Yu, Tongtong
    Tian, Chunyang
    Song, Jia
    He, Dongxu
    Sun, Zhijun
    Sun, Zhaoqing
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2017, 7
  • [26] The prognostic value of shock index for the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Xiaocong
    Wang, Zejie
    Wang, Zhenyu
    Fang, Manling
    Shu, Zhouwu
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (38)
  • [27] Zubaid Mohammad, 2017, Heart Views, V18, P41, DOI 10.4103/HEARTVIEWS.HEARTVIEWS_113_16