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.

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.