Comparison of Modified Shock Index and Shock Index for Predicting Massive Transfusion in Women with Primary Postpartum Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study
- PMID: 38437191
- PMCID: PMC10921966
- DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943286
Comparison of Modified Shock Index and Shock Index for Predicting Massive Transfusion in Women with Primary Postpartum Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND The modified shock index (MSI) is calculated as the ratio of heart rate (HR) to mean arterial pressure (MAP) and has been used to predict the need for massive transfusion (MT) in trauma patients. This retrospective study from a single center aimed to compare the MSI with the traditional shock index (SI) to predict the need for MT in 612 women diagnosed with primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) at the Emergency Department (ED) between January 2004 and August 2023. MATERIAL AND METHODS The patients were divided into the MT group and the non-MT group. The predictive power of MSI and SI was compared using the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS Out of 612 patients, 105 (17.2%) required MT. The MT group had higher median values than the non-MT group for MSI (1.58 vs 1.07, P<0.001) and SI (1.22 vs 0.80, P<0.001). The AUC for MSI, with a value of 0.811 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.778-0.841), did not demonstrate a significant difference compared to the AUC for SI, which was 0.829 (95% CI, 0.797-0.858) (P=0.066). The optimal cutoff values for MSI and SI were 1.34 and 1.07, respectively. The specificity and PPV for MT were 77.1% and 40.2% for MSI, and 83.2% and 45.9% for SI. CONCLUSIONS Both MSI and SI were effective in predicting MT in patients with primary PPH. However, MSI did not demonstrate superior performance to SI.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
References
-
- Duthie SJ, Ven D, Yung GL, et al. Discrepancy between laboratory determination and visual estimation of blood loss during normal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;38(2):119–24. - PubMed
-
- Larsson C, Saltvedt S, Wiklund I, et al. Estimation of blood loss after cesarean section and vaginal delivery has low validity with a tendency to exaggeration. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(12):1448–52. - PubMed
-
- Strote J, Mayo M, Townes D. ED patient estimation of blood loss. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27(6):709–11. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources