Shock index (SI) is defined as the heart rate (HR) divided by systolic blood pressure (SBP). It has been studied in patients either at risk of or experiencing shock from a variety of causes: trauma, hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and ruptured ectopic pregnancy. While HR and SBP have traditionally been used to characterize shock in these patients, they often appear normal in the compensatory phase of shock and can be confounded by factors such as medications (eg, antihypertensives, beta-agonists). SI >1.0 has been widely found to predict increased risk of mortality and other markers of morbidity, such as need for massive transfusion protocol activation and admission to intensive care units. Recent research has aimed to study the use of SI in patients immediately on arrival to the emergency department (ED). In this review, we summarize the literature pertaining to use of SI across a variety of settings in the management of ED patients, in order to provide context for use of this measure in the triage and management of critically ill patients.

No abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine if 0.15 mg/kg intravenous (IV) subdissociative ketamine is noninferior to 0.3 mg/kg in emergency department (ED) patients with acute pain. Methods This randomized, prospective, double‐blinded, noninferiority trial included patients’ age 18 to 59 years presenting to the ED with acute moderate to severe pain. Subjects were randomized to IV subdissociative ketamine, 0.15 mg/kg ("low" dose) or 0.30 mg/kg ("high" dose), over 15 minutes. The primary endpoint was the 11‐point numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score between groups at 30 minutes. Secondary endpoints included NRS pain scores at 15 and 60 minutes; change in NRS at 15, 30, and 60 minutes; rescue analgesia; and adverse effects. The noninferiority limit, δ0, was set to 1.3. Results Forty‐nine patients were included in each group. After the differences in the baseline NRS score were adjusted for, the mean NRS score at 30 minutes was 4.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8 to 5.5) in the low‐dose group and 5.0 (95% CI = 4.2 to 5.8) in the high‐dose group (mean difference = 0.4, 95% CI = −0.8 to 1.5), indicating that the low‐dose subdissociative ketamine was noninferior to the high dose (lower limit of 95% CI = –0.8 to ≥1.3 = –δ0). Adverse effects were similar at 30 minutes. At 15 minutes, the high‐dose group experienced greater change in NRS; however, more adverse effects occurred. Conclusion Our data did not detect a large difference in analgesia or adverse effect profile between 0.15 mg/kg IV ketamine and 0.30 mg/kg in the short‐term treatment of acute pain in the ED.

Objectives:We sought to characterize how telemental health (TMH) versus in-person mental health consults affected 30-day postevaluation utilization outcomes and processes of care in Veterans presenting to the emergency department (ED) and urgent care clinic (UCC) with acute psychiatric complaints. Methods:This exploratory retrospective cohort study was conducted in an ED and UCC located in a single Veterans Affairs system. A mental health provider administered TMH via iPad. The primary outcome was a composite of return ED/UCC visits, rehospitalizations, or death within 30 days. The following processes of care were collected during the index visit: changes to home psychiatric medications, admission, involuntary psychiatric hold placement, parenteral benzodiazepine or antipsychotic medication use, and physical restraints or seclusion. Data were abstracted from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and the Clinical Data Warehouse.Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported.Results: Of the 496 Veterans in this analysis, 346 (69.8%) received TMH, and 150 (30.2%) received an in-person mental health evaluation. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of 30-day return ED/UCC, rehospitalization, or death (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 0.87-2.49) between the TMH and in-person groups. TMH was significantly associated with increased ED/UCC length of stay (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03-2.06) and decreased use of involuntary psychiatric holds (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.75). There were no associations between TMH and the other processes-of-care outcomes.Conclusions: TMH was not significantly associated with the 30-day composite outcome of return ED/UCC visits, rehospitalizations, and death compared with traditional in-person mental health evaluations. TMH was significantly associated with increased ED/UCC length of stay and decreased odds of placing an involuntary psychiatric hold.Future studies are required to confirm these findings and, if confirmed, explore the potential mechanisms for these associations.