Abstract
Objective:
We aimed to compare the prognostic accuracy of shock indexes in terms of mortality in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.
Methods:
Hospitalized patients whose COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results were positive, had thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan performed, and had typical thoracic CT findings for COVID-19 were included in the study.
Results:
Eight hundred one patients were included in the study. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, chronic neurological diseases, chronic renal failure, and a history of malignancy were found to be chronic diseases that were significantly associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. White blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, C reactive protein, creatinine, sodium, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, high sensitive troponin, d-dimer, hemoglobin, and platelet had a statistically significant relationship with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The area under the curve (AUC) values of shock index (SI), age shock index (aSI), diastolic shock index (dSI), and modified shock index (mSI) calculated to predict mortality were 0.772, 0.745, 0.737, 0.755, and Youden Index J (YJI) values were 0.523, 0.396, 0.436, 0.452, respectively.
Conclusions:
The results of this study show that SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI are effective in predicting in-hospital mortality.
Keywords: age shock index, COVID-19, diastolic shock index, modified shock index, shock index
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) appears to be the most important health crisis of the 21st century and remains a serious problem for global health, given its high rate of transmission, morbidity and mortality. 1 As of March 28, 2022, since its first appearance in Wuhan City, China in December 2019, more than 480 million confirmed cases have been detected worldwide and more than 6.1 million people have died. 2
The shock index (SI), obtained by dividing heart rate (HR) by systolic blood pressure (SBP), is considered a predictor of mortality in different clinical conditions. Modified shock index (mSI), defined as HR divided by mean arterial pressure (MAP), diastolic shock index (dSI), defined as HR divided by diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and age shock index (aSI), defined as age multiplied by SI, are 3 different SI derivatives. 3 By adding the theoretical benefits of including DBP and age, it is intended to create more efficient derivatives of SI. mSI has been reported as a good predictor of disease severity of patients admitted to the emergency department. 4 The age shock index is a new index that was first studied to predict mortality in elderly trauma patients. 5
SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI have been studied with different populations, and their accuracy has been confirmed. 3,6–9 In addition, although SI and mSI have been studied in COVID-19 patients, 10,11 there is no study comparing these 4 markers. In this study, we aimed to compare the prognostic accuracy of SI, mSI, dSI, and aSI in terms of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Methods
Study Design
This study was approved by the Local Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board) of the Antalya Education and Research Hospital with the registration number of 5/12 on April 15, 2021. This retrospective observational study was conducted with patients who presented to tertiary-care hospital and diagnosed with COVID-19, between March 11, 2020, and January 13, 2021. In Turkey, the first COVID-19 patient was diagnosed on March 11, 2020, and the first volunteer person was vaccinated on January 14, 2021. To prevent COVID-19 vaccines from affecting the study population, the study patient admission deadline was set before the first vaccination date.
Patient Selection
Hospitalized patients (both the inpatient unit and the intensive care unit) older than 18 y of age whose COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results were positive, had been performed thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan and had typical thoracic CT findings for COVID-19 included in the study. Patients with negative RT-PCR test results, unable to have laboratory tests, incomplete or partial laboratory test results, without thoracic CT scan, without typical thoracic CT findings, referred to another hospital, undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department, and patients with recurrent admissions were excluded from the study. According to the COVID-19 Adult Patient Management Guideline of Turkish Ministry of Health on March 25, 2020, patients who had respiratory rate <30/min, spontaneous SpO2 level >90%, and pneumonia findings in posterior-anterior chest X-ray or thorax CT were hospitalized to the inpatient unit. Patients who had respiration rate ≥ 30, signs of dyspnea or respiratory distress, SpO2 level <90% despite nasal oxygen support of 5 L/min and above, partial oxygen pressure <70 mmHg despite nasal oxygen support of 5 L/min and above, PaO2/FiO2 level <300, lactate level >4 mmol/L, bilateral infiltrations or multi-lobar involvement on chest X-ray or thorax tomography, hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg, >40 mmHg decrease from usual SBP, MAP <65 mmHg), skin perfusion disorder, kidney or liver function test disorder, thrombocytopenia, organ dysfunction such as change of consciousness, an immunosuppressive disease, an uncontrolled comorbidity with more than 1 feature, elevated troponin level, or arrhythmia were hospitalized to the intensive care unit. 12 The presence of typical thoracic CT findings for COVID-19 was determined using criteria described in previous studies including ground-glass opacity, crazy-paving pattern, and consolidation. 13,14
Data Record
Data included patient demographics (age and sex), past medical history, HR, SBP, DBP, pulse oximeter, body temperature, hemogram (white blood cell [WBC], neutrophil, lymphocyte, hemoglobin, and platelet) and biochemistry (C-reactive protein [CRP], blood urea nitrogen, creatinin, sodium, potassium, aspartate aminotransferase [AST], alanine aminotransferase [ALT], total bilirubin, high sensitive troponin [HS troponin] and d-dimer) parameters studied at the time of the first admission to the hospital, thoracic CT scan interpretation and in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was defined as death occurring during the hospital stay. Vital findings at the time of the first admission to the hospital (before the start of treatment) were used to calculate shock indices.
Definitions
The SI and dSI were calculated as a ratio of HR to SBP and HR to DBP, respectively. The MAP was calculated as (SBP + 2 × DBP) /3 and mSI was calculated as a ratio of HR to MAP. The aSI was calculated as Age × SI.
Data Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 and MedCalc Statistical Software Version 19.0.6. Total study population was divided survivor group and nonsurvivor group for statistical analysis and the groups were compared. Continuous and ordinal data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U-test, and categorical data were analyzed with the chi-squared test. Continuous data were reported as medians and interquartile ranges (25th-75th). Categorical data were presented as frequency and percentage. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed using the Delong method to evaluate and compare the mortality prediction performance of SI, aSI, mSI, and dSI values. 15 AUC and Youden Index J (YJI) were calculated to compare the predictive performance of these 4 different indices. YJI analysis was used to determine the threshold value with the highest performance in terms of predicting mortality risk. 16 Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV values of indices were calculated using the threshold value determined by YJI.
Results
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, this study continued with the data of the remaining 801 patients. The study population consisted of 347 women and 454 men. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of gender, and the mortality risk was higher in male gender (Table 1). The median ages of the total study population, survivor group, and nonsurvivor group were 69 (58-78), 69 (56-77), 70 (61-80), respectively. A statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of age, and advanced age was found to be associated with high mortality (Table 2). In our study population, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic neurological diseases (CND), chronic renal failure (CRF), and a history of malignancy were found to be chronic diseases that were significantly associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (Table 1).
Table 1.
Gender, comorbidities, and categorical descriptive statistics of the study population
| Variable | Category | Survivors (N=464) | Non-survivors (N=337) | Sig.* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | P-Value | ||
| Sex | Male | 242 | 53.3 | 212 | 46.7 | 0.002 |
| Female | 222 | 64.00 | 125 | 36.00 | ||
| COPD | No | 435 | 60.30 | 286 | 39.70 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 29 | 36.30 | 51 | 63.70 | ||
| DM | No | 365 | 57.80 | 266 | 42.20 | 0.927 |
| Yes | 99 | 58.20 | 71 | 41.80 | ||
| HT | No | 320 | 56.80 | 243 | 43.20 | 0.337 |
| Yes | 144 | 60.50 | 94 | 39.50 | ||
| AF | No | 458 | 58.30 | 327 | 41.70 | 0.095 |
| Yes | 6 | 37.50 | 10 | 62.50 | ||
| CHF | No | 444 | 59.90 | 297 | 40.10 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 20 | 33.30 | 40 | 66.70 | ||
| IHD | No | 418 | 58.20 | 300 | 41.80 | 0.625 |
| Yes | 46 | 55.40 | 37 | 44.60 | ||
| CND | No | 452 | 59.30 | 310 | 40.70 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 12 | 30.80 | 27 | 69.20 | ||
| CRF | No | 446 | 59.20 | 307 | 40.80 | 0.003 |
| Yes | 18 | 37.50 | 30 | 62.50 | ||
| Malignancy | No | 455 | 58.60 | 321 | 41.40 | 0.024 |
| Yes | 9 | 36.00 | 16 | 64.00 | ||
Note: Categorical data were analyzed with the chi-squared test.
Asymptotic 2-sided significance between groups.
Abbreviations: CHF, congestive heart failure; CND, chronic neurological disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CRF, chronic renal failure; CT, computed tomography; DM, diabetes mellitus; HT, hypertension; IHD, ischemic heart disease; PE, physical examination.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for age, vital parameters, laboratory measurements, and severity scores
| Variable | All patients (n=801) |
Survivor (n=464) |
Non-survivor (n=337) |
P-Value* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (25th-75th) | ||||
| Age | 69 (58-78) | 69 (56-77) | 70 (61-80) | 0.005 |
| Vital signs, median (25th-75th) | ||||
| SBP (mmHg) | 120 (110-133) | 124 (113-140) | 115 (109-123) | <0.001 |
| DBP(mmHg) | 72 (65-81) | 77 (66- 85) | 71 (65-78) | <0.001 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 88. 7 (80.5-98.3) | 92 (82.7-101.7) | 85.7 (79.3-92.5) | <0.001 |
| HR (bpm) | 96 (81-107) | 88 (77-100) | 105 (93-113) | <0.001 |
| spO2 (%) | 92 (86-96) | 95 (91-97) | 87 (81-93) | <0.001 |
| RR (bpm) | 20 (15-28) | 16 (14-20) | 28 (21-37) | <0.001 |
| Temp (ºC) | 36.7 (36.3-37.2) | 36.7 (36.2-37.1) | 36.7 (36.3-37.4) | 0.059 |
| Laboratory measurements, median (25th-75th) | ||||
| WBC (103/mm 3 ) | 8.5 (6.2-13.1) | 7.7 (5.6-11.8) | 9.8 (7.0-14.4) | <0.001 |
| Neutrophil (103/mm 3 ) | 6.5 (4.3-10.6) | 5.7 (3.8-9.8) | 7.3 (5.3-12.1) | <0.001 |
| Lymphocyte (103/mm 3 ) | 1.1 (0.6-1.7) | 1 (0.6-1.6) | 1.2 (0.7-1.8) | 0.039 |
| Hemoglobin (g/dL) | 12.1 (10.6-13.3) | 12.4 (11.0-13.4) | 11.6 (10.0-13.0) | <0.001 |
| Platelet (103/mm 3 ) | 201 (137-266) | 206.5 (151.3-268) | 187 (97-262.5) | <0.001 |
| CRP (mg/L) | 118.9 (50.2-189.8) | 96.3 (35-173.2) | 147.2 (76.7 -220.8) | <0.001 |
| BUN (mg/dL) | 39 (25-57) | 40 (28-57) | 36 (22-62) | 0.107 |
| Creatinin (mg/dL) | 1.18 (0.85-2.1) | 0.99 (0.76-1.73) | 1.60 (1.04-2.30) | <0.001 |
| Sodium (mmol/L) | 137 (133-141) | 136 (133-140) | 138 (133-144) | <0.001 |
| Potassium (mmol/L) | 4.3 (3.8-4.8) | 4.24 (3.9-4.7) | 4.3 (3.8-5) | 0.080 |
| AST (U/L) | 45 (28-95) | 37 (26-74.75) | 58 (35-119.5) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 37 (19-95) | 31 (16-67) | 49 (24-126) | <0.001 |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 0.6 (0.4-0.8) | 0.5 (0.3-0.79) | 0.67 (0.5-0.99) | <0.001 |
| HS troponin (ng/L) | 23 (11-54) | 18 (9-38) | 36 (16-67) | <0.001 |
| D-dimer (ug/L) | 645(411.5-993.5) | 607.5 (375-925.3) | 727 (491.5-1089.5) | <0.001 |
| Severity scores, median (25th-75th) | ||||
| SI | 0.78 (0.64-0.91) | 0.69 (0.59-0.83) | 0.91 (0.77-1.0) | <0.001 |
| aSI | 52.25 (41.17-64.85) | 46.33 (36.6-56.6) | 61.3 (50.71-74.24) | <0.001 |
| dSI | 1.31 (1.07-1.54) | 1.16 (1-1.38) | 1.46 (1.27-1.66) | <0.001 |
| mSI | 1.07 (0.87-1.26) | 0.96 (0.81-1.13) | 1.22 (1.06-1.34) | <0.001 |
Note: Continuous and ordinal data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test.
Asymptotic 2-sided significance between groups.
Abbreviations: aSI, age shock index; CRP, c-reactive protein; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; dSI, diastolic shock index; HR, heart rate; HS troponin, high sensitive troponin T; mSI, modified shock index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SI, shock index; spO2, blood oxygen saturation.
WBC, neutrophil, lymphocyte, CRP, creatinine, sodium, AST, ALT, total bilirubin, HS troponin, and laboratory parameters of d-dimer, hemoglobin and platelet had a statistically significant relationship with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Hemoglobin and platelet were lower in the nonsurvivor group, while other parameters were higher (Table 2).
The performances of the SI, aSI, dSI, and mSI variables were analyzed by ROC analysis in terms of predicting the mortality risk of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The AUC values of SI, aSI, dSI, and mSI calculated to predict mortality were 0.772, 0.745, 0.737, 0.755, and YJI values were 0.523, 0.396, 0.436, 0.452, respectively (Table 3; Figure 1). When ROC curves were compared in pairs, there were statistically significant differences between the SI and each of the other 3 indices to predict mortality. Table 4 shows that this significant difference favors SI.
Table 3.
Predictive performance of SI, aSI, dSI, and mSI in terms of in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients
| Variable | Sensitivity (CI 95%) |
Specificity (CI 95%) |
PPV (CI 95%) |
NPV (CI 95%) |
AUC (CI 95%) |
YJI (CI 95%) |
Criterion of YJI | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SI | 67.36 (62.1-72.3) |
84.91 (81.3 - 88.0) |
76.4 (72.1 - 80.3) |
78.2 (75.4 - 80.8) |
0.772 (0.742- 0.801) |
0.523 (0.463-0.577) |
>0.87 | <0.001 |
| aSI | 60.53 (55.1-65.8) |
79.09 (75.1 - 82.7) |
67.8 (63.3 - 71.9) |
73.4 (70.6 - 76.0) |
0.745 (0.713 - 0.775) |
0.396 (0.330-0.450) |
>58.3 | <0.001 |
| dSI | 70.92 (65.8-75.7) |
72.63 (68.3 - 76.6) |
65.3 (61.5 - 68.9) |
77.5 (74.3 - 80.4) |
0.737 (0.705 - 0.767) |
0.436 (0.376-0.498) |
>1.35 | <0.001 |
| mSI | 67.66 (62.4-72.6) |
77.59 (73.5 - 81.3) |
68.7 (64.6 - 72.5) |
76.8 (73.7 - 79.5) |
0.755 (0.723 - 0.784) |
0.452 (0.387-0.512) |
>1.14 | <0.001 |
Note: ROC analysis was performed using the Delong method.
Abbreviations: aSI, age shock index; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; dSI, diastolic shock index; mSI, modified shock index; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; SI, shock index; YJI, Youden J Index.
Figure 1.
ROC curves of shock index, age shock index, diastolic shock index, and modified shock index.
Table 4.
Pairwise comparisons of ROC curves
| Comparisons | DBA | 95% CI | z statistic | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SI-aSI | 0.0273 | 0.00112 to 0.0536 | 2.043 | 0.0410 |
| SI-dSI | 0.0350 | 0.0163 to 0.0538 | 3.665 | 0.0002 |
| SI-mSI | 0.0176 | 0.00613 to 0.0291 | 3.008 | 0.0026 |
| aSI-dSI | 0.00771 | -0.0218 to 0.0372 | 0.513 | 0.6081 |
| aSI-mSI | 0.00974 | -0.0174 to 0.0369 | 0.703 | 0.4819 |
| dSI-mSI | 0.0174 | 0.00889 to 0.0260 | 3.994 | 0.0001 |
Note: ROC analysis was performed using the Delong method.
Abbreviations: aSI, age shock index; CI, confidence interval; DBA, difference between areas; dSI, diastolic shock index; mSI, modified shock index; SI, shock index.
Limitations
The prominent limitations of this study are its retrospective and single-center design. Another limitation of our study is the relatively high mortality rate in the study population. The fact that the COVID-19 pandemic peaks and relatively mild patients are followed at home is effective in this situation. In addition, the exclusion of patients who did not have typical pneumonia findings on CT and had missing data on vital signs or laboratory findings may also have affected this situation.
Discussion
In this study, we compared the prognostic performance of SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI in terms of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. We concluded that these 4 scorings may be useful in predicting in-hospital mortality. For our study population, we found the performance of SI to predict in-hospital mortality was higher than the other 3 scores.
SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI are noninvasive measurements, and important markers for early evaluation of hemodynamics and tissue perfusion. 17 SI score has been studied in cases such as pulmonary embolism, geriatric patients with influenza, sepsis, ectopic pregnancy, shock, early detection of transfusion need, mortality risk in myocardial infarction, mortality risk in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, and the need for intensive care in patients admitted to the emergency department, and it has been found to be a successful prognostic marker. 18–26 In studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and mortality risk, the ideal cutoff value for SI was reported as 0.93 by Doğanay et al., 10 0.86 by van Rensen et al., 27 and 0.72 by Kurt and Bahadırlı. 11 A novel study compared 4 different cutoff value of SI in COVID-19 for predicting of ICU requirement and 30-d mortality. The authors concluded that the most useful threshold value for the SI in predicting the prognosis of COVID-19 patients is 0.9 in both situations. 28 In our study, the ideal cutoff value for SI was found to be 0.87, and the sensitivity of this cutoff value in terms of predicting mortality was 67%, the specificity was 85%, PPV 76%, NPV 78%, and YJI 0.523.
In a study in which all patients admitted to the emergency department were included in the study population, it was reported that the mSI threshold value of 1.3 was associated with increased intensive care unit (ICU) admission and increased risk of death. 4 Two other studies compared SI with mSI to predict prognosis in emergency patients and reported that mSI was a better predictor of mortality. 8,29 In another study, it was reported that a 1.4 threshold value of mSI was a successful indicator in predicting the risk of 7-d all-cause mortality and major cardiac problems in STEMI patients. This study also compared SI with mSI and concluded that mSI is better for predicting prognosis. 30 Smischney et al. found the best cutoff point as 1.8 for mSI to predict in-hospital mortality in ICU patients. 31 Jayaprakash et al. reported that mSI value higher than 1.3 measured in the early period in sepsis patients was associated with an increased risk of myocardial damage and mortality. 32 Another study found that patients with an mSI greater than 1.3 were more likely to be admitted to the ICU and to die. In this study, both SI and mSI were found to be associated with increased mortality risk and length of stay in the ICU. 33
In a study comparing different shock indexes to determine the need for transfusion in trauma patients, the ideal threshold value was calculated as 0.95 for SI, 1.15 for mSI, and 36.95 for aSI. 7 In another study comparing SI, aSI, and mSI in predicting mortality risk in geriatric trauma patients, the prognostic performance of aSI was found to be the best. In the same study, ideal threshold values were calculated as 1.05 for SI, 1.40 for mSI, and 80 for aSI. 6 Ospina-Tascón et al. demonstrated that progressive increases in dSI before vasopressor treatment in sepsis patients were associated with increased 90-day mortality risk. 34 Kurt and Bahadırlı investigated in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and reported that a cut-off value of 1 for mSI gave the highest sensitivity. 11 In our study, we investigated the relationship among 4 different indexes and in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. We found that the ideal thresholds of SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI were 0.87, 1.35, 1.14, and 58.3, respectively, and all 4 of them performed well in predicting mortality risk. We would like to emphasize that for our study population, SI had the highest AUC and YJI for these 4 markers and was superior to the others.
Descriptive data of patients such as age, gender, and comorbid diseases will be useful in predicting the need for hospitalization and determining risk groups in terms of mortality, especially in cases where health services are limited. In the literature, there are articles reporting the effects of age, gender, and comorbidity in terms of need for intensive care and mortality risk in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19. 10,11,27,31,35–39 In our study, advanced age, male gender, COPD, CHF, CND, CRF, and history of malignancy were found to be closely associated with mortality, in line with the literature.
Ruan et al. 35 showed that there were significant differences in WBC, lymphocyte, platelet, albumin, total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, myoglobin, cardiac troponin, CRP, and interleukin-6 values between the living and dying groups of COVID-19 patients. In a study conducted in Wuhan, the origin of COVID-19, CRP, procalcitonin, WBC, and neutrophil counts were found to be higher in the death group. 36 In another study, it was found that age, WBC, neutrophil count, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, AST, potassium, CRP, and d-dimer may be higher in the clinically severe patient group. Lymphocyte counts, albumin, and sodium levels were found to be lower in the clinically severe patient group. 37 A recent study reported that there were significant differences between survivor and non-survivor groups regarding WBC, neutrophil, lymphocyte, hemoglobin and platelet levels. 38 In our study, WBC, neutrophil, lymphocyte, CRP, creatinine, sodium, AST, ALT, total bilirubin, HS troponin, and d-dimer were higher in the group who died due to COVID-19 disease; while hemoglobin and platelet were found at lower levels.
Conclusions
The results of this study show that SI, dSI, mSI, and aSI are effective in predicting in-hospital mortality. The performance of SI to predict in-hospital mortality is higher than the other 3 scores. In addition, these indexes can identify patients who may have a worse prognosis, enable closer monitoring, and increase the level of alertness against possible complications.
Author Contributions
M.A. and F.D. conceived the study, designed the trial, and obtained research funding, supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection, undertook recruitment of participating centers and patients and managed the data, including quality control, provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data; M.A. chaired the data oversight committee. M.A. and F.D. drafted the manuscript, and contributed substantially to its revision. All authors take responsibility for the study as a whole.
References
- 1. Ashraf O, Virani A, Cheema T. COVID-19: an update on the epidemiological, clinical, preventive, and therapeutic management of 2019 novel coronavirus disease. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2021; 44(1):128-137. doi: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Accessed May 30, 2022. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- 3. Torabi M, Moeinaddini S, Mirafzal A, et al. Shock index, modified shock index, and age shock index for prediction of mortality in Emergency Severity Index level 3. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(11):2079-2083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Liu YC, Liu JH, Fang ZA, et al. Modified shock index and mortality rate of emergency patients. World J Emerg Med. 2012;3(2):114-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Zarzaur BL, Croce MA, Fischer PE, et al. New vitals after injury: shock index for the young and age x shock index for the old. J Surg Res. 2008;147(2):229-236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kim SY, Hong KJ, Shin SD, et al. Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, and Age Shock Index for predicting mortality of geriatric trauma patients in emergency departments. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31:2026-2032. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.2026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Rau CS, Wu SC, Kuo SCH, et al. Prediction of massive transfusion in trauma patients with Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, and Age Shock Index. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:683. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13070683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Torabi M, Mirafzal A, Rastegari A, et al. Association of Triage Time Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, and Age Shock Index with mortality in emergency severity index level 2 patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(1):63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.09.01 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Zhou J, Shan PR, Xie QL, et al. Age shock index and age-modified shock index are strong predictors of outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention. Coron Artery Dis. 2019;30(6):398-405. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Doğanay F, Elkonca F, Seyhan AU, et al. Shock index as a predictor of mortality among the Covid-19 patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;40:106-109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kurt E, Bahadırlı S. The usefulness of Shock Index and Modified Shock Index in predicting outcome of COVID-19 patients. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 12.https://www.ekmud.org.tr/files/uploads/files/Saglik-Bakanligi-COVID-19-rehberi-23032020.pdf. https://www.ekmud.org.tr/files/uploads/files/Saglik-Bakanligi-COVID-19-rehberi-23032020.pdf
- 13. Pan F, Ye T, Sun P, et al. Time course of lung changes on chest CT during recovery from 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia. Radiology. 2020;295(3). doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Seyhan AU, Doğanay F, Yılmaz E, et al. The comparison of chest CT and RT-PCR during the diagnosis of COVID-19. J Clin Med Kaz. 2021;18(1):53-56. [Google Scholar]
- 15. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med. 2000;45(1-2):23-41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Olaussen A, Blackburn T, Mitra B, et al. Shock index for prediction of critical bleeding post-trauma: a systematic review. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26(3):223-228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Wira CR, Francis MW, Bhat S, et al. The shock Index as a predictor or vasopressor use in emergency department patients with severe sepsis. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(1):60-66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Toosi MS, Merlino JD, Leeper KV. Prognostic value of the shock index along with transthoracic echocardiography in risk stratification of patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(5):700-705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Kristensen AK, Holler JG, Hallas J, et al. Is shock index a valid predictor of mortality in emergency department patients with hypertension, diabetes, high age, or receipt of β-or calcium channel blockers? Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(1):106-113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Chung JY, Hsu CC, Chen JH, et al. Shock index predicted mortality in geriatric patients with influenza in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(3):391-394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Rady MY, Smithline HA, Blake H, et al. A comparison of the shock index and conventional vital signs to identify acute, critical illness in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24(4):685-690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Barrett JA, Glickman SW, Caram LB, et al. 185: utility of triage heart rate and shock index in predicting infection in emergency department patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;3(50):S59. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jouffroy R, Tourtier JP, Gueye P, et al. Prehospital shock index to assess 28-day mortality for septic shock. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(7):1352-1356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Birkhahn RH, Gaeta TJ, Van Deusen SK, et al. The ability of traditional vital signs and shock index to identify ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1293-1296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Berger T, Green J, Horeczko T, et al. Shock index and early recognition of sepsis in the emergency department: pilot study. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(2):168-174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. van Rensen IHT, Hensgens KRC, Lekx AW, et al. Early detection of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at high risk of clinical deterioration: utility of emergency department shock index. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;49:76-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Ak R, Doğanay F. Comparison of four different threshold values of shock index in predicting mortality of COVID-19 patients. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021:1-15. doi:10.1017/dmp.2021.374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 29. Singh A, Ali S, Agarwal A, et al. Correlation of shock index and modified shock index with the outcome of adult trauma patients: a prospective study of 9860 patients. N Am J Med Sci. 2014;6:450-452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Shangguan Q, Xu JS, Su H, et al. Modified shock index is a predictor for 7-day outcomes in patients with STEMI. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(8):1072-1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Smischney NJ, Seisa MO, Heise KJ, et al. Elevated modified shock index within 24 hours of ICU admission is an early indicator of mortality in the critically ill. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33(10):582-588. doi: 10.1177/0885066616679606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Jayaprakash N, Ognjen Gajic O, Frank RD, et al. Elevated modified shock index in early sepsis is associated with myocardial dysfunction and mortality. J Crit Care. 2018;43:30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.08.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Cannon CM, Braxton CC, Kling-Smith M, et al. Utility of the shock index in predicting mortality in traumatically injured patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2009;67(6):1426-1430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Ospina-Tascón GA, Teboul JL, Hernandez G, et al. Diastolic shock index and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1),1-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Ruan Q, Yang K, Wang W, et al. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(5):846-848. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Du RH, Liang LR, Yang CQ, et al. Predictors of mortality for patients with COVID19 pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2: a prospective cohort study. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:2000524. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00524-2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Sarıcı A, Berber NK, Cağasar Ö, et al. The impact of laboratory features and comorbidities on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. J Health Sci Med. 2021;4(2):142-146. [Google Scholar]
- 38. Yılmaz E, Ak R, Doğanay F. Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting the severity of COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2022;140(1):81-86. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0298.R1.27052021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Doğanay F, Ak R. Performance of the CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in terms of severity for COVID-19 patients. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(10):e14759. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

