scholarly journals Shock index values for predicting early mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Areesha Alam
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 512-520
Author(s):  
Vandana Chugh ◽  
◽  
Nidhi Prabha Sehgal ◽  
Deepak Bhasin ◽  
Shakti Singhal ◽  
...  

Critical Care ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. P62
Author(s):  
R Sinto ◽  
S Suwarto ◽  
R Sedono ◽  
K Harimurti ◽  
A Sejati

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 984-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarika Gupta ◽  
Areesha Alam

Background: Aim of the study was to analyze the association of shock index (SI) from 0 to 6 hours with early mortality in severe sepsis/septic shock and to explore its age-specific cut-off values. To investigate association of change in SI over first 6 hours with early mortality. Methods: A prospective cohort study of children (<14 years) admitted in emergency department, tertiary care hospital with severe sepsis or septic shock, divided into 3 groups: group 1: 1 month to <1 year; group 2: 1 to <6 years; group 3: 6 to 12 years. Shock index (SI = heart rate/systolic blood pressure) measured at admission (X0) and hourly till 6 hours (X1-6). Primary outcome was death within 48 hours of admission. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for SI (0-6). Optimal cut-offs of SI 0 and SI 6, maximizing both sensitivity and specificity were determined and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated. Results: From 2015 to 2016, 120 children were recruited. Septic shock was present at admission in 56.7% children. Early mortality was 50%. All hourly shock indices (SI 0-6) were higher among nonsurvivors in group 2 ( P ≤ .03) and group 3 ( P < .001). In group 1, SI after 2 hours was higher in nonsurvivors ( P 2-6: ≤ .02). Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (95% CI) for SI at 0 hour was 0.72 (0.5-0.9), 0.66 (0.5-0.8), and 0.77 (0.6-0.9) and at 6 hours was 0.8 (0.6-1), 0.75 (0.6-0.9), and 0.8 (0.7-1) in 3 groups. The cut-off values of SI 0 (sensitivity; specificity; PPV; NPV) in 3 groups: 1.98 (77; 75; 67; 83), 1.50 (65; 65; 68; 63), and 1.25 (90; 67; 77; 83) and SI6: 1.66 (85; 80; 73; 89), 1.36 (73; 70; 73; 70), and 1.30 (74; 73; 78; 69). Improvement of SI over 6 hours was associated with better outcome. Children with higher SI at both time points had higher mortality than those with SI score below the cut-offs ( P = .001). Conclusions: Age-specific SI cut-off values may identify children at high risk of early mortality in severe sepsis/septic shock and allow for better targeted management.


MedPharmRes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Bien Le ◽  
Dai Huynh ◽  
Mai Tuan ◽  
Minh Phan ◽  
Thao Pham ◽  
...  

Objectives: to evaluate the fluid responsiveness according to fluid bolus triggers and their combination in severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: observational study. Patients and Methods: patients with severe sepsis and septic shock who already received fluid after rescue phase of resuscitation. Fluid bolus (FB) was prescribed upon perceived hypovolemic manifestations: low central venous pressure (CVP), low blood pressure, tachycardia, low urine output (UOP), hyperlactatemia. FB was performed by Ringer lactate 500 ml/30 min and responsiveness was defined by increasing in stroke volume (SV) ≥15%. Results: 84 patients were enrolled, among them 30 responded to FB (35.7%). Demographic and hemodynamic profile before fluid bolus were similar between responders and non-responders, except CVP was lower in responders (7.3 ± 3.4 mmHg vs 9.2 ± 3.6 mmHg) (p 0.018). Fluid response in low CVP, low blood pressure, tachycardia, low UOP, hyperlactatemia were 48.6%, 47.4%, 38.5%, 37.0%, 36.8% making the odd ratio (OR) of these triggers were 2.81 (1.09-7.27), 1.60 (0.54-4.78), 1.89 (0.58-6.18), 1.15 (0.41-3.27) and 1.27 (0.46-3.53) respectively. Although CVP < 8 mmHg had a higher response rate, the association was not consistent at lower cut-offs. The combination of these triggers appeared to raise fluid response but did not reach statistical significance: 26.7% (1 trigger), 31.0% (2 triggers), 35.7% (3 triggers), 55.6% (4 triggers), 100% (5 triggers). Conclusions: fluid responsiveness was low in optimization phase of resuscitation. No fluid bolus trigger was superior to the others in term of providing a higher responsiveness, their combination did not improve fluid responsiveness as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document