Long-Term Implications of Abnormal Left Ventricular Strain During Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Septic cardiomyopathy develops frequently in patients with sepsis and likely increases short-term mortality. However, whether septic cardiomyopathy is associated with long-term outcomes after sepsis is unknown. We investigated whether septic patients with septic cardiomyopathy have worse long-term outcomes than septic patients without septic cardiomyopathy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Adult ICU. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients with sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain was our primary measure of septic cardiomyopathy. We employed a suite of multivariable survival analyses to explore linear and nonlinear associations between left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain and major adverse cardiovascular events, which included death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Our primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular event through 24 months after ICU discharge. Among 290 study patients, median left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain was -16.8% (interquartile range, -20.4% to -12.6%), and 38.3% of patients (n = 111) experienced a major adverse cardiovascular event within 24 months after discharge. On our primary, linear analysis, there was a trend (p = 0.08) toward association between left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain and major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio, 1.03; CI, < 1 to 1.07). On our nonlinear analysis, the association was highly significant (p < 0.001) with both high and low left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain associated with major adverse cardiovascular event among patients with pre-existing cardiac disease. This association was pronounced among patients who were younger (age < 65 yr) and had Charlson Comorbidity Index greater than 5. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis and pre-existing cardiac disease who survived to ICU discharge, left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain demonstrated a U-shaped association with cardiovascular outcomes through 24 months. The relationship was especially strong among younger patients with more comorbidities. These observations are likely of use to design of future trials.

Identifying predictors and determining mortality rates of septic cardiomyopathy and sepsis-related cardiogenic shock: A retrospective, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis that has a high mortality rate, and a substantial proportion of these patients will develop cardiac dysfunction, often termed septic cardiomyopathy (SCM). Some SCM patients may develop frank cardiac failure, termed sepsis-related cardiogenic shock (SeRCS). Little is known of SeRCS. This study describes baseline characteristics of patients with SCM and SeRCS compared to patients with septic shock without cardiac dysfunction. We compare clinical outcomes among SCM, SeRCS, and septic shock, and identify risk factors for the development of SCM and SeRCS. METHODS: Septic patients admitted to the ICU with an echocardiogram obtained within 72 hours were included. Left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤55% was used to define SCM, and cardiac index ≤2.1 L/min/m2 among patients with SCM defined SeRCS. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for development of SCM and SeRCS. Logistic regression was used to compare mortality among groups. RESULTS: Among 1229 patients, 977 patients had septic shock without cardiac dysfunction, 207 had SCM, and 45 had SeRCS. In patients with septic shock, the strongest predictor for developing SCM and SeRCs was a prior history of cardiac dysfunction. Mortality did not significantly differ among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: SCM and SeRCS affect a minority of patients with septic shock, disproportionately affecting individuals with a history of cardiac disease. We did not identify a mortality difference associated with SCM or SeRCS. Additional work is needed to define further subtypes and treatment options for this patient population.

Unanticipated critical findings on echocardiography in septic patients.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is increasingly performed among septic patients as a routine part of evaluation and management in the intensive care unit (ICU). The rate of unanticipated critical findings (e.g., severe left or right ventricular dysfunction or pericardial tamponade) on such echocardiograms is unknown. We evaluated a retrospective cohort of septic ICU patients in whom transthoracic echocardiography was performed as a routine part of sepsis management. In addition to identifying critical findings, we defined whether each critical finding was anticipated, and whether the clinical team responded to the critical finding. The primary outcome was rate of unanticipated critical findings, which we hypothesized would occur in fewer than 5% of patients. We also performed an exploratory analysis of the association between unanticipated critical finding and mortality, controlling for severity of illness. RESULTS: We studied 393 patients. Unanticipated critical findings were identified in 5% (95% CI 3-7%) of patients (n = 20). Among the 20 patients with unanticipated critical findings, a response to the unanticipated critical finding was identified in 12 (60%) patients. An unanticipated critical finding was not significantly associated with 28-day mortality when controlling for admission APACHE II (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Unanticipated critical findings on echocardiograms in septic ICU patients are uncommon. The potential therapeutic relevance of echocardiography to sepsis is more likely related to hemodynamic management than to traditional cardiac diagnoses. Research studies that employ blinded echocardiograms in septic patients may anticipate unblinding for critical findings approximately 1 in every 20 echocardiograms.

A 73-Year-Old Man With Progressive Whole Body Subcutaneous Gas After Pleural Catheter Removal.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 73-year-old man presented to the ED of an outside hospital with asymptomatic chest wall swelling 10 h after discharge from our hospital. Four days earlier, he had presented to our hospital with increased dyspnea, cough, and sputum production. His history was notable for severe COPD with bullous emphysema. Chest imaging demonstrated bilateral opacities and a collection of gas and liquid in the major fissure of the left lung. A catheter was placed into the collection of gas and liquid under imaging guidance. After 4 days, the catheter was removed without event and the patient was discharged from the hospital with an extended course of antibiotics. Imaging performed in the ED revealed gas in the tissues of the chest wall and no evidence of a pneumothorax. He was transported back to our hospital by helicopter.

Echocardiogram-guided resuscitation versus early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of septic shock: a randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: Echocardiography is often used to guide septic shock resuscitation, but without evidence for efficacy. We conducted an intensive care unit (ICU)-based randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing echocardiography-guided septic shock resuscitation (ECHO) with early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). METHODS: We conducted a single center, randomized controlled feasibility trial at a 468-bed academic tertiary care center in Utah, USA. Adult patients with early septic shock were assessed and treated at defined intervals over 6 h using an echocardiogram-guided resuscitation protocol or a slightly modified EGDT protocol. Feasibility outcomes were fluid balance, dobutamine administration, and time to lactate clearance. The primary clinical outcome was changed in sequential organ failure assessment score at 48 h (delta SOFA). Secondary outcomes included inpatient mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days at 28 days. RESULTS: Thirty participants, 15 per group, were randomized and completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Patients were randomized within a median of 3.5 h of meeting inclusion criteria but had received a median of 3 L crystalloid by then. Fluid administration during the study protocol was similar in both groups (median ECHO 0 vs EGDT 1 L, p = 0.61). Eleven (73%) subjects in each arm received ≤ 1 L fluid. Dobutamine administration was also similar (20% vs 13%, p > 0.99). Twenty-one patients (70%) had lactate clearance prior to the first study assessment. No difference was observed in delta SOFA (median - 4 for ECHO vs - 6 for EGDT, p = 0.10) nor mortality (33% ECHO vs 20% EGDT, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: No experimental separation was observed in this randomized, controlled feasibility trial. Early lactate clearance, coupled with substantial fluid administration before randomization, suggests that patients were already resuscitated before arrival in the ICU. Future trials of echocardiogram-guided sepsis resuscitation will likely need to enroll in the emergency department. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02354742, title Echo vs EGDT in severe sepsis and septic shock) on February 3, 2015. Registration was completed before review or analysis of any data.