El Ayadi Alison M, Nathan Hannah L, Seed Paul T, Butrick Elizabeth A, Hezelgrave Natasha L, Shennan Andrew H, Miller Suellen
Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco; San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Women's Health Academic Centre, King's College London,London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0148729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148729. eCollection 2016.
To determine the optimal vital sign predictor of adverse maternal outcomes in women with hypovolemic shock secondary to obstetric hemorrhage and to develop thresholds for referral/intensive monitoring and need for urgent intervention to inform a vital sign alert device for low-resource settings.
We conducted secondary analyses of a dataset of pregnant/postpartum women with hypovolemic shock in low-resource settings (n = 958). Using receiver-operating curve analysis, we evaluated the predictive ability of pulse, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, shock index, mean arterial pressure, and pulse pressure for three adverse maternal outcomes: (1) death, (2) severe maternal outcome (death or severe end organ dysfunction morbidity); and (3) a combined severe maternal and critical interventions outcome comprising death, severe end organ dysfunction morbidity, intensive care admission, blood transfusion ≥ 5 units, or emergency hysterectomy. Two threshold parameters with optimal rule-in and rule-out characteristics were selected based on sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values.
Shock index was consistently among the top two predictors across adverse maternal outcomes. Its discriminatory ability was significantly better than pulse and pulse pressure for maternal death (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively), diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure for severe maternal outcome (p<0.01), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure for severe maternal outcome and critical interventions (p<0.01). A shock index threshold of ≥ 0.9 maintained high sensitivity (100.0) with clinical practicality, ≥ 1.4 balanced specificity (range 70.0-74.8) with negative predictive value (range 93.2-99.2), and ≥ 1.7 further improved specificity (range 80.7-90.8) without compromising negative predictive value (range 88.8-98.5).
For women with hypovolemic shock from obstetric hemorrhage, shock index was consistently a strong predictor of all adverse outcomes. In lower-level facilities in low resource settings, we recommend a shock index threshold of ≥ 0.9 indicating need for referral, ≥ 1.4 indicating urgent need for intervention in tertiary facilities and ≥ 1.7 indicating high chance of adverse outcome. The vital sign alert device incorporated values 0.9 and 1.7; however, all thresholds will be prospectively validated and clinical pathways for action appropriate to setting established prior to clinical implementation.
确定产科出血继发低血容量性休克女性不良孕产妇结局的最佳生命体征预测指标,并制定转诊/强化监测阈值以及紧急干预需求,为资源匮乏地区的生命体征警报装置提供依据。
我们对资源匮乏地区低血容量性休克的孕妇/产后女性数据集(n = 958)进行了二次分析。使用受试者工作特征曲线分析,我们评估了脉搏、收缩压、舒张压、休克指数、平均动脉压和脉压对三种不良孕产妇结局的预测能力:(1)死亡;(2)严重孕产妇结局(死亡或严重终末器官功能障碍发病率);(3)包括死亡、严重终末器官功能障碍发病率、重症监护病房入院、输血≥5单位或急诊子宫切除术的严重孕产妇和关键干预综合结局。根据敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值,选择了具有最佳纳入和排除特征的两个阈值参数。
休克指数始终是所有不良孕产妇结局的前两位预测指标之一。其鉴别能力在孕产妇死亡方面显著优于脉搏和脉压(分别为p<0.05和p<0.01),在严重孕产妇结局方面优于舒张压和脉压(p<0.01),在严重孕产妇结局和关键干预方面优于收缩压和舒张压、平均动脉压和脉压(p<0.01)。休克指数阈值≥0.9具有较高的敏感性(100.0)且具有临床实用性,≥1.4在保持阴性预测值(范围93.2 - 99.2)的同时平衡了特异性(范围70.0 - 74.8),≥1.7在不影响阴性预测值(范围88.8 - 98.5)的情况下进一步提高了特异性(范围80.7 - 90.8)。
对于产科出血继发低血容量性休克的女性,休克指数始终是所有不良结局的有力预测指标。在资源匮乏地区的基层医疗机构,我们建议休克指数阈值≥0.9表示需要转诊,≥1.4表示三级医疗机构急需干预,≥1.7表示不良结局可能性高。生命体征警报装置纳入了0.9和1.7这两个值;然而,所有阈值将进行前瞻性验证,并在临床实施前确定适合具体情况的临床行动路径。