We have located links that may give you full text access.
A comparison of the shock index and conventional vital signs to identify acute, critical illness in the emergency department.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 1994 October
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Shock index (SI) (heart rate/systolic blood pressure; normal range, 0.5 to 0.7) and conventional vital signs were compared to identify acute critical illness in the emergency department.
DESIGN: Quasi-prospective study.
PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-five consecutive adults who presented for urgent medical care.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients had vital signs, SI, and triage priority recorded on arrival in the ED and then their final disposition.
RESULTS: Two groups were identified retrospectively by the SI; group 1 (41) had an SI of more than 0.9, and group 2 (234) had an SI of less than 0.9 on arrival in the ED. Although both groups had apparently stable vital signs on arrival, group 1 had a significantly higher proportion of patients who were triaged to a priority requiring immediate treatment (23 versus 45; P < .01) and required admission to the hospital (35 versus 105; P < .01) and continued therapy in an ICU (10 versus 13; P < .01).
CONCLUSION: With apparently stable vital signs, an abnormal elevation of the SI to more than 0.9 was associated with an illness that was treated immediately, admission to the hospital, and intensive therapy on admission. The SI may be useful to evaluate acute critical illness in the ED.
DESIGN: Quasi-prospective study.
PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-five consecutive adults who presented for urgent medical care.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients had vital signs, SI, and triage priority recorded on arrival in the ED and then their final disposition.
RESULTS: Two groups were identified retrospectively by the SI; group 1 (41) had an SI of more than 0.9, and group 2 (234) had an SI of less than 0.9 on arrival in the ED. Although both groups had apparently stable vital signs on arrival, group 1 had a significantly higher proportion of patients who were triaged to a priority requiring immediate treatment (23 versus 45; P < .01) and required admission to the hospital (35 versus 105; P < .01) and continued therapy in an ICU (10 versus 13; P < .01).
CONCLUSION: With apparently stable vital signs, an abnormal elevation of the SI to more than 0.9 was associated with an illness that was treated immediately, admission to the hospital, and intensive therapy on admission. The SI may be useful to evaluate acute critical illness in the ED.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Treatment of hyponatremia: comprehension and best clinical practice.Clinical and Experimental Nephrology 2025 January 23
How We Treat ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Focus on the Maintenance Therapy.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025 January 2
Allergic rhinitis.Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology 2024 December 27
Insomnia in older adults: A review of treatment options.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2025 January 2
Aldosterone and Potassium in Heart Failure: Overcoming This Major Impediment in Clinical Practice.Cardiac Failure Review 2024
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app