The Shock Index is not accurate at predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Saffouri E, Blackwell C, Laursen SB, Laine L, Dalton HR, Ngu J, Shultz M, Norton R, Stanley AJ. The Shock Index is not accurate at predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2020 Jan 1; 51(2):253-260.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• SDR 18-151 – Evaluation of the National Randomized Proton Pump Inhibitor De-prescribing (RaPPID) Program

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a major cause of hospital admission worldwide. The recent UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report on severe gastrointestinal bleeding used the Shock Index to assess bleeding severity and found an association between Shock Index and mortality. However, this has never been prospectively validated as a predictor of outcome in UGIB. AIMS: To compare the Shock Index with existing pre-endoscopic UGIB risk scores in predicting outcomes after UGIB METHODS: In an international, prospective study of 3012 consecutive patients with UGIB, we compared the Shock Index with existing scores including the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), admission Rockall score, AIMS65, and the newly described "ABC" score. Pre-determined endpoints were need for major ( = 4 units red cells) transfusion, need for endoscopic therapy and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The Shock Index was inferior to the GBS in predicting need for major transfusion (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.655 vs 0.836, P  <  0.001) and need for endotherapy (AUROC 0.606 vs 0.747, P  <  0.001). The Shock Index was inferior to all other scores for 30-day mortality: for example, AUROC 0.611 vs 0.863 for ABC score (P  <  0.001). Adding the Shock Index to the ABC score did not improve accuracy of the ABC score in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.864 vs 0.863, P  =  0.95). CONCLUSION: The Shock Index performed poorly with AUROCs < 0.66 and was inferior to existing pre-endoscopy scores at predicting major clinical endpoints after UGIB. We found no clear evidence that the Shock Index is clinically useful at predicting outcomes in UGIB. [Correction added on 20 December 2019, after first online publication: Summary section has been changed for clarification.].