Comparison of Sepsis-1, 2 and 3 for Predicting Mortality in Septic Patients of a Middle-Income Country: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of sepsis is based on expert consensus and does not yet have a "gold standard." With the aim of improving and standardizing diagnostic methods, there have already been three major consensuses on the subject. However, there are still few studies in middle-income countries comparing the methods. This study describes the characteristics of patients diagnosed with sepsis and evaluates and compares the performance of Sepsis-1, 2, and 3 criteria in predicting 28 days, and in-hospital mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. All admissions between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, were reviewed. Patients diagnosed with sepsis were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 653 patients diagnosed with sepsis (by any of the studied criteria) were included in the study. The 28 days mortality rate was 45.8%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 59.7%. We observed that 72.1% of patients met the minimum criteria for diagnosing sepsis according to the three protocols, and this group also had the highest mortality rate. Age and comorbidities such as cancer and liver cirrhosis were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. The most common microorganisms were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Staphylococcus spp. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that most patients met the diagnostic criteria for sepsis using the three methods. Sepsis-2 showed greater sensitivity to predict mortality, while Sequential Organ Failure Assessment showed low accuracy, but was the only significant one. Furthermore, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) had the highest specificity for mortality. Overall, these findings suggest that, although all three methods contribute to the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis, Sepsis-2 is particularly sensitive in predicting mortality. Sepsis-3 shows some accuracy but requires improvement, and qSOFA exhibits the highest specificity. More research is needed to improve predictive capabilities and patient outcomes.

Higher sensitivity of pericardial fluid cytology than biopsy in malignant effusions with potential explanation of false-negative cytology: A multi-institutional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Malignant pericardial effusions are associated with a poor prognosis. Pericardial fluid cytology and pericardial biopsy are the primary methods for diagnosis. This study aimed to conduct a multi-institutional analysis to compare the diagnostic sensitivity of cytology and biopsy, and to investigate potential explanations for false-negative results in cytology. METHODS: A retrospective review of pericardial fluid cytology cases with concurrent biopsy was conducted across four different institutions. Results were compared using standard statistical methods with attention to sensitivity and histologic distribution. False-negative cytology cases were investigated for further exploration. RESULTS: A total of 309 cases were collected, of which 99 (32.0%) were confirmed malignant through repeat sampling or clinical history. Pericardial fluid cytology and biopsy identified 84 and 64 malignant cases, respectively. Our findings confirmed significantly higher sensitivity of cytology compared to biopsy (84.8% vs 65.7%). The most common sites of origin were lung, breast, and gastrointestinal, with adenocarcinoma being the most prevalent histologic subtype. Histologic review of 12 false-negative cytology cases revealed three key explanations; lymphoma was the most common missed diagnosis (33.3%); fibrinous pericarditis obscures neoplastic cells on the pericardial surface; and pericardial involvement can be seen without extension into the pericardial space. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated diagnostic superiority of pericardial fluid cytology over biopsy in the evaluation of malignant pericardial effusions. We identified several limitations in fluid cytology causing false negatives. In the context of an underlying malignancy with pericardial effusion, pathologists should consider immunohistochemistry studies to aid on the diagnosis.

Factors associated with myocardial SARS-CoV-2 infection, myocarditis, and cardiac inflammation in patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 has been associated with cardiac injury and dysfunction. While both myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration and myocarditis with myocyte injury have been reported in patients with fatal COVID-19, clinical-pathologic correlations remain limited. The objective was to determine the relationships between cardiac pathological changes in patients dying from COVID-19 and cardiac infection by SARS-CoV-2, laboratory measurements, clinical features, and treatments. In a retrospective study, 41 consecutive autopsies of patients with fatal COVID-19 were analyzed for the associations between cardiac inflammation, myocarditis, cardiac infection by SARS-CoV-2, clinical features, laboratory measurements, and treatments. Cardiac infection was assessed by in situ hybridization and NanoString transcriptomic profiling. Cardiac infection by SARS-CoV-2 was present in 30/41 cases: virus+ with myocarditis (n = 4), virus+ without myocarditis (n = 26), and virus- without myocarditis (n = 11). In the cases with cardiac infection, SARS-CoV-2+ cells in the myocardium were rare, with a median density of 1 cell/cm2. Virus+ cases showed higher densities of myocardial CD68+ macrophages and CD3+ lymphocytes, as well as more electrocardiographic changes (23/27 vs 4/10; P = 0.01). Myocarditis was more prevalent with IL-6 blockade than with nonbiologic immunosuppression, primarily glucocorticoids (2/3 vs 0/14; P = 0.02). Overall, SARS-CoV-2 cardiac infection was less prevalent in patients treated with nonbiologic immunosuppression (7/14 vs 21/24; P = 0.02). Myocardial macrophage and lymphocyte densities overall were positively correlated with the duration of symptoms but not with underlying comorbidities. In summary, cardiac infection with SARS-CoV-2 is common among patients dying from COVID-19 but often with only rare infected cells. Cardiac infection by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with more cardiac inflammation and electrocardiographic changes. Nonbiologic immunosuppression is associated with lower incidences of myocarditis and cardiac infection by SARS-CoV-2.