IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0119331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nontraumatic Hypotension and Shock in the Emergency Department and the Prehospital setting, Prevalence, Etiology, and Mortality: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Jon Gitz Holler
  • Camilla Nørgaard Bech
  • Daniel Pilsgaard Henriksen
  • Søren Mikkelsen
  • Court Pedersen
  • Annmarie Touborg Lassen

Abstract

Background: Acute patients presenting with hypotension in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting are in need of focused management and knowledge of the epidemiology characteristics might help the clinician. The aim of this review was to address prevalence, etiology and mortality of nontraumatic hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mmHg) with or without the presence of shock in the prehospital and ED setting. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search up to August 2013, using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Dare and The Cochrane Library. The analysis and eligibility criteria were documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-guidelines) and The Cochrane Collaboration. No restrictions on language, publication date, or status were imposed. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS-scale) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE-statement) to assess the quality. Results: Six observational studies were considered eligible for analysis based on the evaluation of 11,880 identified papers. Prehospital prevalence of hypotension was 19.5/1000 emergency medicine service (EMS) contacts, and the prevalence of hypotensive shock was 9.5-19/1000 EMS contacts with an inhospital mortality of shock between 33 to 52%. ED prevalence of hypotension was 4-13/1000 contacts with a mortality of 12%. Information on mortality, prevalence and etiology of shock in the ED was limited. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial heterogeneity between studies. Conclusion: There is inadequate evidence to establish concise estimates of the characteristics of nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED or in the prehospital setting. The available studies suggest that 2% of EMS contacts present with nontraumatic hypotension while 1-2% present with shock. The inhospital mortality of prehospital shock is 33-52%. Prevalence of hypotension in the ED is 1% with an inhospital mortality of 12%. Prevalence, etiology and mortality of shock in the ED are not well described.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon Gitz Holler & Camilla Nørgaard Bech & Daniel Pilsgaard Henriksen & Søren Mikkelsen & Court Pedersen & Annmarie Touborg Lassen, 2015. "Nontraumatic Hypotension and Shock in the Emergency Department and the Prehospital setting, Prevalence, Etiology, and Mortality: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119331
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119331
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119331&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0119331?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan P Vandenbroucke & Erik von Elm & Douglas G Altman & Peter C Gøtzsche & Cynthia D Mulrow & Stuart J Pocock & Charles Poole & James J Schlesselman & Matthias Egger & for the STROBE Initiative, 2007. "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-27, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martine Hendriksma & Michiel H M A Joosten & Jeroen P M Peters & Wilko Grolman & Inge Stegeman, 2017. "Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Erik von Elm & Douglas G Altman & Matthias Egger & Stuart J Pocock & Peter C Gøtzsche & Jan P Vandenbroucke & for the STROBE Initiative, 2007. "The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5, October.
    3. Fotini K Kavvoura & George Liberopoulos & John P A Ioannidis, 2007. "Selection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical Assessment," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-10, March.
    4. Bhushan Borotikar & Mathieu Lempereur & Mathieu Lelievre & Valérie Burdin & Douraied Ben Salem & Sylvain Brochard, 2017. "Dynamic MRI to quantify musculoskeletal motion: A systematic review of concurrent validity and reliability, and perspectives for evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    5. Genevieve Rocheleau & Conrado Franco-Villalobos & Natalia Oliveira & Zabrina L Brumme & Melanie Rusch & Jeannie Shoveller & Chanson J Brumme & P Richard Harrigan, 2017. "Sociodemographic correlates of HIV drug resistance and access to drug resistance testing in British Columbia, Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    6. Paris B Lovett & J Akiva Kahn & Stuart E Greene & Matthew A Bloch & Daniel R Brandt & Michael R Minckler, 2014. "Early Quick Acuity Score Provides More Complete Data on Emergency Department Walkouts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, January.
    7. Takeshi Odajima & Minoko Takanashi & Hiroki Sugimori & Taiko Tanba & Kentaro Yoshinaga & Toshiko Motoji & Masaya Munakata & Kazunori Nakajima & Mutsuhiko Minami, 2016. "Impact of Elevated Hemoglobin and Serum Protein on Vasovagal Reaction from Blood Donation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    8. Julian Little & Julian PT Higgins & John PA Ioannidis & David Moher & France Gagnon & Erik von Elm & Muin J Khoury & Barbara Cohen & George Davey-Smith & Jeremy Grimshaw & Paul Scheet & Marta Gwinn & , 2009. "STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)— An Extension of the STROBE Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-13, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.