Dataset Information

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. A shock index (SI), modified SI (MSI), delta-SI, and shock index-C (SIC) are known predictors of STEMI. This retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the predictive value of the SI, MSI, delta-SI, and SIC with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scales.

Method

Patients > 20 years old with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Youden index was performed to calculate the optimal cutoff values for these predictors.

Results

Overall, 1552 adult STEMI cases were analyzed. The thresholds for the emergency department (ED) SI, MSI, SIC, and TIMI risk scales for in-hospital mortality were 0.75, 0.97, 21.00, and 5.5, respectively. Accordingly, ED SIC had better predictive power than the ED SI and ED MSI. The predictive power was relatively higher than TIMI risk scales, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. After adjusting for confounding factors, the ED SI > 0.75, MSI > 0.97, SIC > 21.0, and TIMI risk scales > 5.5 were statistically and significantly associated with in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Compared with the ED SI and MSI, SIC (>21.0) had better sensitivity (67.2%, 95% CI, 58.6-75.9%), specificity (83.5%, 95% CI, 81.6-85.4%), PPV (24.8%, 95% CI, 20.2-29.6%), and NPV (96.9%, 95% CI, 96.0-97.9%) for in-hospital mortality of STEMI.

Conclusions

SIC had better discrimination ability than the SI, MSI, and delta-SI. Compared with the TIMI risk scales, the ACU value of SIC was still higher. Therefore, SIC might be a convenient and rapid tool for predicting the outcome of STEMI.

SUBMITTER: Chiang CY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9573755 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Chiang Charng-Yen CY Lin Chien-Fu CF Liu Peng-Huei PH Chen Fu-Cheng FC Chiu I-Min IM Cheng Fu-Jen FJ

Journal of clinical medicine 20221001 19

Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. A shock index (SI), modified SI (MSI), delta-SI, and shock index-C (SIC) are known predictors of STEMI. This retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the predictive value of the SI, MSI, delta-SI, and SIC with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scales. Method: Patients > 20 years old with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Receive ...[more]

PMID: 36233705

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, direct transport from the scene to the catheterisation laboratory bypassing the emergency department has been shown to shorten times to reperfusion. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of emergency department bypass on mortality in both haemodynamically stable and unstable STEMI patients.MethodsThe analysis is based on a large cohort of STEMI patients prospectively included in the German multicentre Feedback Intervention and Treatment Times in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FITT-STEMI) trial.ResultsOut of 13,219 STEMI patients who were brought directly from the scene by emergency medical service transportation and were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, the majority were transported directly to the catheterisation laboratory bypassing the emergency department (n=6740, 51% with emergency department bypass). These patients had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality than their counterparts with no emergency department bypass (6.2% vs. 10.0%, P<0.0001). The reduced mortality related to emergency department bypass was observed in both stable (n=11,594, 2.8% vs. 3.8%, P=0.0024) and unstable patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (n=1625, 36.3% vs. 46.2%, P<0.0001). Regression models adjusted for the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score consistently confirmed a significant and independent predictive effect of emergency department bypass on survival in the total study population (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.74, P<0.0001) and in the subgroup of shock patients (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88, P=0.0028).ConclusionIn STEMI patients, emergency department bypass is associated with a significant reduction in mortality, which is most pronounced in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. Our data encourage treatment protocols for emergency department bypass to improve the survival of both haemodynamically stable patients and, in particular, unstable patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00794001 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00794001.

Project description:AimsThere are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).MethodsUsing the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.ResultsDuring 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

Dataset Information

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets