Utility of shock index in 24,636 patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1Clinical Medicine, Weill Cornel Medical College, Doha, Qatar.
- 2Clinical Research, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
- 3Department of Cardiac Sciences, King Fahad Cardiac Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA.
- 4Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
- 5College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, UAE.
- 6Department of Cardiology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman.
- 7Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
- 8Department of Cardiology, Mohammed Bin Khalifa Cardiac Center, Manamah, Bahrain.
- 9Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sana'a University, Yemen.
- 10Cardiology Department, Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
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.
Keywords: Shock index; acute coronary syndrome; cardiogenic shock; heart failure; myocardial infarction.
Similar articles
Zubaid M, Rashed WA, Al-Khaja N, Almahmeed W, Al-Lawati J, Sulaiman K, Al-Motarreb A, Amin H, Al-Suwaidi J, Al-Habib K.Saudi Med J. 2008 Feb;29(2):251-5.PMID: 18246236
Nishi FA, de Motta Maia FO, de Lopes Monteiro da Cruz DA.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Nov;13(11):64-73. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2213.PMID: 26657465
Al-Aqeedi R, Sulaiman K, Al Suwaidi J, Alhabib K, El-Menyar A, Panduranga P, Alshiekh-Ali A, Al Saif S.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Dec;13(6):611-8. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2011.274571. Epub 2011 Sep 13.PMID: 21920933
Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Atwood J.Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2022 Nov;40(4):693-706. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2022.06.008.PMID: 36396216 Review.
Castillo Costa Y, Cáceres L, Mauro V, Fairman E, Fernández A, Soricetti J, Sorasio G, Lescano A, D Imperio H.Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022 Oct;47(10):101309. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101309. Epub 2022 Jul 8.PMID: 35810845 Review.
Cited by
Kumar R, Ahmed I, Rai L, Khowaja S, Hashim M, Huma Z, Sial JA, Saghir T, Qamar N, Karim M.Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2022 Dec 15;12(6):298-306. eCollection 2022.PMID: 36743512 Free PMC article.
Bondariyan N, Vakhshoori M, Sadeghpour N, Shafie D.Anatol J Cardiol. 2022 Mar;26(3):210-217. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2021.671.PMID: 35346907 Free PMC article.
Ran P, Wei XB, Lin YW, Li G, Huang JL, He XY, Yang JQ, Yu DQ, Chen JY.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Jun 15;8:657817. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.657817. eCollection 2021.PMID: 34212012 Free PMC article.
Sex differences in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Yan I, Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S, Hilal R, Beer BN, Becher PM, Seiffert M, Magnussen C, B Schnabel R, Kirchhof P, Blankenberg S, Westermann D.ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Jun;8(3):1775-1783. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13303. Epub 2021 Mar 24.PMID: 33763997 Free PMC article.