Evaluation of Albumin Kinetics in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Compared to Those With Sepsis-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This report aims to characterize the kinetics of serum albumin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with critically ill patients with sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome.Design
Retrospective analysis.Setting
We analyzed two critically ill cohorts, one with coronavirus disease 2019 and another with sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome, treated in the New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center.Patients
Adult patients in the coronavirus disease 2019 cohort, diagnosed through reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, were admitted from March 3, 2020, to July 10, 2020. Adult patients in the sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome cohort, defined by Sepsis III criteria receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation and a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 300 were admitted from December 12, 2006, to February 26, 2019.Interventions
None.Measurements and main results
We evaluated serial serum albumin levels within 30 days after ICU admission in each cohort. We then examined the albumin progression trajectories, aligned at ICU admission time to test the relationship at a similar point in disease progression, in survivors and nonsurvivors. Albumin trajectory in all critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients show two distinct phases: phase I (deterioration) showing rapid albumin loss and phase II (recovery) showing albumin stabilization or improvement. Meanwhile, albumin recovery predicted clinical improvement in critical coronavirus disease 2019. In addition, we found a deterioration and recovery trends in survivors in the sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome cohort but did not find such two-phase trend in nonsurvivors.Conclusions
The changes in albumin associated with coronavirus disease 2019 associated respiratory failure are transient compared with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and highlight the potential for recovery following a protracted course of severe coronavirus disease 2019.
SUBMITTER: Su C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718234 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection to which there is no community immunity. Patients admitted to ICUs have high mortality, with only supportive therapies available. Our aim was to profile plasma inflammatory analytes to help understand the host response to coronavirus disease 2019.DesignDaily blood inflammation profiling with immunoassays.SettingTertiary care ICU and academic laboratory.SubjectsAll patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had daily blood samples collected until either testing was confirmed negative on ICU day 3 (coronavirus disease 2019 negative), or until ICU day 7 if the patient was positive (coronavirus disease 2019 positive).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAge- and sex-matched healthy controls and ICU patients that were either coronavirus disease 2019 positive or coronavirus disease 2019 negative were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were more likely than coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients to suffer bilateral pneumonia. Mortality rate for coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients was 40%. We measured 57 inflammatory analytes and then analyzed with both conventional statistics and machine learning. Twenty inflammatory analytes were different between coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients and healthy controls (p < 0.01). Compared with coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients, coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients had 17 elevated inflammatory analytes on one or more of their ICU days 1-3 (p < 0.01), with feature classification identifying the top six analytes between cohorts as tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2. While tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, and interleukin-18 were elevated for all seven ICU days, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10 transiently elevated on ICU days 2 and 3 and elastase 2 increased over ICU days 2-7. Inflammation profiling predicted coronavirus disease 2019 status with 98% accuracy, whereas elevated heat shock protein 70 was strongly associated with mortality.ConclusionsWhile many inflammatory analytes were elevated in coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients, relative to healthy controls, the top six analytes distinguishing coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients from coronavirus disease 2019 negative ICU patients were tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2.
| S-EPMC7314329 | 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: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:Severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recently, several publications reported on coronavirus disease 2019-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. However, risk factors remain unclear. We retrospectively collected all the cases of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (n = 46) admitted to our 34-bed ICU between March 24, 2020, and May 25, 2020, and identified six patients that met the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis according to previously established definitions. This population exhibited higher severity scores at admission and less hospital discharge compared with noninvasive pulmonary aspergillosis patients. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malnutrition, and systemic corticosteroid use were identified as risk factors for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in coronavirus disease 2019-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Coronavirus disease 2019-associated pulmonary aspergillosis may be a serious concern regarding corticosteroids use to control the inflammatory response of coronavirus disease 2019-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome.
| S-EPMC7665250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePrevious studies assessing impact of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on mortality have shown conflicting results. We sought to assess the independent association of ARDS with in-hospital mortality among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis.MethodsWe studied two prospective sepsis cohorts drawn from the Early Assessment of Renal and Lung Injury (EARLI; n = 474) and Validating Acute Lung Injury markers for Diagnosis (VALID; n = 337) cohorts. ARDS was defined by Berlin criteria. We used logistic regression to compare in-hospital mortality in patients with and without ARDS, controlling for baseline severity of illness. We also estimated attributable mortality, adjusted for illness severity by stratification.ResultsARDS occurred in 195 EARLI patients (41%) and 99 VALID patients (29%). ARDS was independently associated with risk of hospital death in multivariate analysis, even after controlling for severity of illness, as measured by APACHE II (odds ratio [OR] 1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02, 2.67), p = 0.04 in EARLI; OR 2.12 (CI 1.16, 3.92), p = 0.02 in VALID). Patients with severe ARDS (P/F < 100) primarily drove this relationship. The attributable mortality of ARDS was 27% (CI 14%, 37%) in EARLI and 37% (CI 10%, 51%) in VALID. ARDS was independently associated with ICU mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ventilator-free days.ConclusionsDevelopment of ARDS among ICU patients with sepsis confers increased risk of ICU and in-hospital mortality in addition to other important outcomes. Clinical trials targeting patients with severe ARDS will be best poised to detect measurable differences in these outcomes.
| S-EPMC7224051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAltered heart rate variability has been associated with autonomic dysfunction in a number of disease profiles, in this work we elucidate differences in the biomarker among patients with all-cause sepsis and coronavirus disease 2019.ObjectivesTo measure heart rate variability metrics in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with comparison to all-cause critically ill sepsis patients.Design setting and participantsRetrospective analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to an ICU for at least 24 hours at any of Emory Healthcare ICUs between March 2020 and April 2020 up to 5 days of ICU stay. The comparison group was a cohort of all-cause sepsis patients prior to coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.Main outcomes and measuresContinuous waveforms were captured from the patient monitor. The electrocardiogram was then analyzed for each patient over a 300 seconds observational window that was shifted by 30 seconds in each iteration from admission till discharge. A total of 23 heart rate variability metrics were extracted in each iteration. We use the Kruskal-Wallis and Steel-Dwass tests (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis and interpretations of heart rate variability multiple measures.ResultsA total of 141 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients met inclusion criteria, who were compared with 208 patients with all-cause sepsis. Three nonlinear markers, including the ratio of standard deviation derived from the Poincaré plot, sample entropy, and approximate entropy and four linear features, including mode of beat-to-beat interval, acceleration capacity, deceleration capacity, and the proportion of consecutive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms, were all statistically significant (p < 0.05) between the coronavirus disease 2019 and all-cause sepsis cohorts. The three nonlinear features and acceleration capacity, deceleration capacity, and beat-to-beat interval (mode) were statistically significant (p < 0.05) when comparing pairwise analysis among the combinations of survivors and nonsurvivors between the coronavirus disease 2019 and sepsis cohorts. Temporal analysis of the main markers showed low variability across the 5 days of analysis compared with sepsis patients.Conclusions and relevanceIn this descriptive statistical study, heart rate variability measures were found to be statistically different across critically ill patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and distinct from bacterial sepsis.
| S-EPMC8718227 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7836287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causes direct lung damage, overwhelming endothelial activation, and inflammatory reaction, leading to acute respiratory failure and multi-organ dysfunction. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating targeted therapies to hinder this exaggerated inflammatory response. Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown heterogeneous severity trajectories, suggesting that response to therapies is likely to vary across patients.Research questionAre critically ill COVID-19 patients biologically and immunologically dissociable based on profiling of currently evaluated therapeutic targets?Study design and methodsWe did a single-center, prospective study in an ICU department in France. Ninety-six critically ill adult patients admitted with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. We conducted principal components analysis and hierarchical clustering on a vast array of immunologic variables measured on the day of ICU admission.ResultsWe found that patients were distributed in three clusters bearing distinct immunologic features and associated with different ICU outcomes. Cluster 1 had a "humoral immunodeficiency" phenotype with predominant B-lymphocyte defect, relative hypogammaglobulinemia, and moderate inflammation. Cluster 2 had a "hyperinflammatory" phenotype, with high cytokine levels (IL-6, IL-1β, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF⍺]) associated with CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte defects. Cluster 3 had a "complement-dependent" phenotype with terminal complement activation markers (elevated C3 and sC5b-9).InterpretationPatients with severe COVID-19 exhibiting cytokine release marks, complement activation, or B-lymphocyte defects are distinct from each other. Such immunologic variability argues in favor of targeting different mediators in different groups of patients and could serve as a basis for patient identification and clinical trial eligibility.
| S-EPMC7831685 | biostudies-literature