Advanced echocardiographic phenotyping of critically ill patients with coronavirus-19 sepsis: a prospective cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Sepsis is characterized by various hemodynamic alterations which could happen concomitantly in the heart, pulmonary and systemic circulations. A comprehensive demonstration of their interactions in the clinical setting of COVID-19 sepsis is lacking. This study aimed at evaluating the feasibility, clinical implications, and physiological coherence of the various indices of hemodynamic function and acute myocardial injury (AMI) in COVID-19 sepsis.Methods
Hemodynamic and echocardiographic data of septic critically ill COVID-19 patients were prospectively recorded. A dozen hemodynamic indices exploring contractility and loading conditions were assessed. Several cardiac biomarkers were measured, and AMI was considered if serum concentration of high-sensitive troponin T (hs-TNT) was above the 99th percentile, upper reference.Results
Sixty-seven patients were assessed (55 males), with a median age of 61 [50-70] years. Overall, the feasibility of echocardiographic parameters was very good, ranging from 93 to 100%. Hierarchical clustering method identified four coherent clusters involving cardiac preload, left ventricle (LV) contractility, LV afterload, and right ventricle (RV) function. LV contractility indices were not associated with preload indices, but some of them were positively correlated with RV function parameters and negatively correlated with a single LV afterload parameter. In most cases (n = 36, 54%), echocardiography results prompted therapeutic changes. Mortality was not influenced by the echocardiographic variables in multivariable analysis. Cardiac biomarkers' concentrations were most often increased with high incidence of AMI reaching 72%. hs-TNT was associated with mortality and inversely correlated with most of LV and RV contractility indices.Conclusions
In this comprehensive hemodynamic evaluation in critically ill COVID-19 septic patients, we identified four homogeneous and coherent clusters with a good feasibility. AMI was common and associated with alteration of LV and RV functions. Echocardiographic assessment had a clinical impact on patient management in most cases.
SUBMITTER: Bagate F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7816136 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator
2015-10-24 | E-GEOD-74224 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.
2010-05-25 | E-GEOD-6535 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:IntroductionIn this prospective, observational study, we have evaluated right (RV) and left (LV) ventricular function with echocardiography and correlated it to the levels of biomarkers, hs-TNT, NT-pro-BNP, D-dimer and fibrinogen. In a subgroup, we have evaluated the effect of inhaled milrinone on RV afterload and function.MethodsThirty-one ICU patients with COVID-19 in need of mechanical ventilation and norepinephrine infusion were prospectively included. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables were measured at the time of the echocardiographic examination and biomarkers were obtained on arrival at the ICU and then followed up routinely. Eight patients received inhaled aerosolized milrinone at a dose of 2.5 mg/hour.ResultsThe most common echocardiographic pattern was RV dilation with or without systolic dysfunction, which was found in 62% of patients. Pulmonary acceleration time was abnormal in 55% and indices of RV systolic function, such as fractional area of change, RV strain, were abnormal in 30% and 31% of patients respectively. A cardiac index of < 2.5 l/min*m2 was seen in 58% of the patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction and global left ventricular strain were impaired in 10% and 16% respectively. The correlation between echocardiographic variables and cardiac biomarkers was poor. RV afterload correlated well to the levels of D-dimer. Milrinone inhalation did not improve RV function or afterload.ConclusionRV dysfunction was the most common finding. The poor correlation to cardiac biomarkers argues against extensive myocardial involvement. The lack of improvement in RV function after milrinone inhalation suggests that the most likely cause of RV dysfunction is increased RV afterload caused by pulmonary thrombosis/embolism.
| S-EPMC8166586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA subset of critically ill COVID-19 patients develop a hyperinflammatory state. Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, is known to be effective in several hyperinflammatory diseases. We investigated the effects of anakinra on inflammatory parameters and clinical outcomes in critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with clinical features of hyperinflammation.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, 21 critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with anakinra were compared to a group of standard care. Serial data of clinical inflammatory parameters and concentrations of multiple circulating cytokines were determined and aligned on start day of anakinra in the treatment group, and median start day of anakinra in the control group. Analysis was performed for day - 10 to + 10 relative to alignment day. Clinical outcomes were analyzed during 28 days. Additionally, three sensitivity analyses were performed: (1) using propensity score-matched groups, (2) selecting patients who did not receive corticosteroids, and (3) using a subset of the control group aimed to match the criteria (fever, elevated ferritin) for starting anakinra treatment.ResultsBaseline patient characteristics and clinical parameters on ICU admission were similar between groups. As a consequence of bias by indication, plasma levels of aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT) (p = 0.0002), ferritin (p = 0.009), and temperature (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the anakinra group on alignment day. Following treatment, no relevant differences in kinetics of circulating cytokines were observed between both groups. Decreases of clinical parameters, including temperature (p = 0.03), white blood cell counts (p = 0.02), and plasma levels of ferritin (p = 0.003), procalcitonin (p = 0.001), creatinine (p = 0.01), and bilirubin (p = 0.007), were more pronounced in the anakinra group. No differences in duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay were observed between groups. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results.ConclusionsAnakinra is effective in reducing clinical signs of hyperinflammation in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to draw conclusion about the effects of anakinra on clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7726611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThere is limited knowledge on how the source of infection impacts the host response to sepsis. We aimed to compare the host response in sepsis patients with a single, known source at admission (< 24 h) to the intensive care unit.MethodsFrom the molecular diagnosis and risk stratification of sepsis (MARS) prospective cohort, we measured 16 plasma host response biomarkers reflective of key host response pathways in 621 sepsis patients. In a subgroup (n = 335), blood leukocyte transcriptomes were compared between the sources. Differences in clinical patient profiles and survival were compared in the whole sepsis cohort (n = 2019).ResultsThe plasma biomarker cohort was categorized into sepsis originating from the respiratory tract (n = 334, 53.8%), abdomen (n = 159, 25.6%), urinary tract (n = 44, 7.1%), cardiovascular (n = 41, 6.6%), central nervous system (CNS) (n = 18, 2.9%), or skin (n = 25, 4%). This analysis revealed stronger inflammatory and cytokine responses, loss of vascular integrity and coagulation activation in abdominal sepsis relative to respiratory. Endothelial cell activation was prominent in urinary, cardiovascular and skin infections, while CNS infection was associated with the least host response aberrations. The leukocyte transcriptional response showed the largest overlap between abdominal and pulmonary infections (76% in common); notable differences between the sources were detected regarding hemostasis, cytokine signaling, innate and adaptive immune, and metabolic transcriptional pathways. After adjustment for confounders, the source of infection remained an independent contributor to 30-day mortality (unadjusted p = 0.001, adjusted p = 0.028).ConclusionSepsis heterogeneity is partly explained by source-specific host response dysregulations and should be considered when selecting patients for trials testing immune modulatory drugs.
| S-EPMC8667541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7176264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7101866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 can cause severe disease with need of treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) for several weeks. Increased knowledge is needed about the long-term consequences.MethodsThis is a single-center prospective follow-up study of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU for respiratory organ support between March and July 2020. Patients with invasive ventilation were compared with those with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) regarding functional outcome and health-related qualify of life. The mean follow-up time was 5 months after ICU discharge and included clinical history, three well-validated questionnaires about health-related quality of life and psychological health, pulmonary function test, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and work ability. Data were analyzed with multivariable general linear and logistic regression models with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsAmong 248 ICU patients, 200 patients survived. Of these, 113 patients came for follow-up. Seventy patients (62%) had received invasive ventilation. Most patients reported impaired health-related quality of life. Approximately one-third suffered from post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression. Twenty-six percent had reduced total lung capacity, 34% had reduced 6MWT and 50% worked fulltime. The outcomes were similar regardless of ventilatory support, but invasive ventilation was associated with more bodily pain (MSD -19, 95% CI: -32 to -5) and <80% total lung capacity (OR 4.1, 95% CI: 1.3-16.5).ConclusionAmong survivors of COVID-19 who required respiratory organ support, outcomes 5 months after discharge from ICU were largely similar among those requiring invasive compared to non-invasive ventilation.
| S-EPMC8212104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2022-02-28 | GSE197259 | GEO
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples
2015-10-24 | GSE74224 | GEO