search
for
 About Bioline  All Journals  Testimonials  Membership  News


Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
Medknow Publications on behalf of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine
ISSN: 0972-5229 EISSN: 1998-359x
Vol. 13, Num. 2, 2009, pp. 59-65

Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 2, April-June, 2009, pp. 59-65

Research Article

Left atrial function for outcome prediction in severe sepsis and septic shock: An echocardiographic study

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Tawam Hospital, AL Ain
Correspondence Address:Department of Critical Care Medicine, Tawam Hospital/ John Hopkins Medicine, P.O. Box 15258, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi
aomar@tawamhospital.ae

Code Number: cm09015

PMID: 19881185

DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.56050

Abstract

Left ventricular function and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) assessments are used to predict mortality in septic patients. Left atrial function has never been used to prognosticate outcome in septic patients.
Objectives:
To assess if deterioration of left atrial function in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock could predict mortality.
Methods:
We studied 30 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock with a mean age of 49.8±16.17. Echocardiographic parameters were measured on admission, Day 4, and Day 7, which comprised left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), and atrial function that is expressed as atrial ejection force (AEF). All patients were subjected to BNP assay as well. Multivariate analyses adjusted for APACHE II score was used for mortality prediction.
Results:
The underlying source for sepsis was lung in 10 patients (33%), blood in 7 patients (23.3%), abdomen in 7 patients (23.7%), and 3 patients (10%) had UTI as a cause of sepsis. Only one patient had CNS infection. In-hospital mortality was 23.3% (7 patients). Admission EF showed a significant difference between survivors and non survivors, 49.01±6.51 vs.. 56.44±6.93% ( P < 0.01). On the other hand, admission AEF showed insignificant changes between the same groups, 10.9±2.81 vs. 9.41±2.4 k/dynes P=0.21, while BNP was significantly higher in the non survivors, 1123±236.08 vs. 592.7±347.1 pg/ml (P< 0.001). The predicatable variables for mortality was Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, BNP, then EF.
Conclusion:
In septic patients, left atrial function unlike the ventricular function and BNP levels can not be used as an independent predictor of mortality.

Keywords: Left atrial function, mortality, septic shock

Introduction

Predictors of outcome in critical care are well described and they include clinical, diagnostic, and physiologic variables .[1] The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system is commonly used in the medical and surgical intensive care (MSICU) population to prognosticate outcome, and to compare acuity of medical care in different intensive care units. [2] Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a widely recognized non invasive clinical tool in the assessment of patients with cardiovascular disease. The clinical impact of TTE on the daily bedside medical management decisions for patients in medical ICU has been previously described. [3],[4],[5] TTE diagnostic variables have been shown to be predictive of mortality in non-critical care cardiovascular patients with diastolic dysfunction. [6] But no direct relation had been made between atrial function and outcome of sepsis in various studies

Abnormalities of cardiac function are quite common in patients with sepsis. The prevalence of this transient phenomenon critically depends on the population studied, the definition applied, and the time point during the course of the disease. Approximately 50% of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock seem to have some form of impairment of left ventricular systolic function. [4]

The hemodynamic pattern in human septic shock is generally characterized by a hyperdynamic circulatory state including decreased systemic vascular resistance and a markedly increased cardiac index after adequate fluid resuscitation. Nevertheless, several studies have revealed clear evidence of intrinsically depressed left ventricular performance in patients with septic shock. The phenomena of myocardial depression in sepsis was first described by Parker, et al. [7]

Aim of the study

The purpose of our study was to assess the utility of atrial function in predicting mortality in the ICU population with severe sepsis or septic shock. To our knowledge, no previous studies have addressed this issue. Our hypothesis was as the atrium share the same pathophysiological effects as the ventricles, assessment of the atrial function may be used as an alternative easy method of assessing the severity of myocardial dysfunction in sepsis and may therefore help to predict mortality.

Materials and Methods

Following approval of the Tawam/Johns Hopkins Hospital Ethics Committee, we prospectively included 30 patients in the study from January 2007 to May 2008, with a mean age of 49.8±16.7 years. Inclusion criteria included patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients with pre-existing heart failure or chronic renal failure were excluded.

All patients were subjected to have:

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)

The study was performed utilizing a General Electric Vivid i Sonos with a 2.5-MHz transducer. Two-dimensional and pulsed Doppler echocardiograms were obtained at rest with the patient placed in the left lateral position to evaluate left ventricular size and left ventricular systolic function. Echo parameters measured included the following dimensions 1) left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end systolic diameter (LVESD), 2) left atrial dimensions (length, diameter, and volume by planimetry), and 3) mitral orifice by planimetry The following functions were calculated 1) systolic left ventricular function namely the ejection fraction (EF%) and 2) Left atrial function after cardioversion expressed as · Atrial ejection force (AEF) =0.5 xP xMitral orifice area x (Peak A velocity) 2 . The unit of force would thus be measured in g-cm/s -2 or dynes while P=product of density of the blood (P=1.06g/cm 3 ). [8] Measures were repeated on the 4 th and 7 th days of admission [Figure - 1].

BNP Measurements

Plasma B-type natriuertic peptide (BNP) concentrations were measured as previously described using the Triage BNP meter (Biosite Diagnostics, San Diego, CA). [9] The first BNP sample was taken on admission to the ICU (Day 1). BNP levels were determined for each patient on admission, Day 4, and Day 7.

Other Data Collection

Baseline clinical variables including age, gender, cause of sepsis, and the admission APACHE II score were collected. [2] Other data collected included the requirements for mechanical ventilation (ventilation hours) and vasopressors, the length of stay in the ICU (LOS ICU ) and in the hospital (LOS HOS ), and the patient′s outcome (alive or dead). Two patients developed atrial fibrillation, one patient reverted chemically with IV amiodaron and the other patient developed it later in the course before he died.

Sepsis has been defined as the presence of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in response to a culture-proven infection. [10] However, SIRS can result not only from infection, but also from a variety of conditions such as autoimmune disorders, vasculitis, thromboembolism, and burns or after surgery. The severity of sepsis is graded according to the associated organ dysfunction and hemodynamic compromise. The original definitions have been revisited by a group of experts, [11] but apart from expanding the list of signs and symptoms of sepsis, no relevant changes have been made. In a recently published review, Annane, et al.[12] proposed a very practical modification of the definitions including exact hemodynamic definitions of septic shock. It is important to recognize that the original definitions relied only on the degree of vasodilatation, whereas in the modification by both the International Sepsis Definition Conference [11] and Annane et al.,[12] myocardial depression defined as low cardiac index or echocardiographic evidence of cardiac dysfunction has been included in the definition of severe sepsis [Table - 1].

Statistical analysis

The description of the data were done in the form of mean ± SD for quantitative data and frequency and proportion for qualitative data. The analysis of the data was done to test the statistically significant difference between groups. For quantitative data, a student′s t test was used to compare the two groups. For qualitative data, a Chi-square test was used and Odds Ratio was detected. Multivarate regression analysis was done for significant data in an univarate analysis. [13] The primary outcome for the study was defined as ICU mortality. Clinical and echocardiographic data were entered into a database (Microsoft Excel 97, Redmond, WA, USA) and statistical analyses were performed (SPSS Inc., Version 10.0.7 Chicago IL, USA).

N.B: P is significant if ≤ 0.05 at a confidence interval of 95%.

Results

The patients′ baseline characteristics are presented in [Table - 2]. All 30 patients stayed in the ICU for more than 48 hours; 18 males and 12 females were included in the study. The underlying cause of sepsis was pneumonia in ten patients (33%), blood stream infection in seven patients (23.3%), intrabdominal sepsis in seven patients (23.7%), and three patients (10%) had urinary tract infection (UTI) as a cause of sepsis, while only one patient had a central nervous system (CNS) infection. A total of 20 patients were admitted with a diagnosis of severe sepsis and ten patients were admitted with a diagnosis of septic shock. A total of 20 patients required norepinephrine and two patients also received vasopressin at admission. Seven other patients required norepinephrine, of those five patients also received vasopressin at some stage in their ICU stay. The in-hospital mortality was 23.3% (seven patients).

[Table - 3] shows that there were no statistical differences between septic shock and severe sepsis groups regarding the baseline ejection fraction (EF), atrial ejection force (AEF), length of stay in the hospital (LOS, HOS ) and length of stay in the ICU (LOS ICU ). The in-hospital mortality rates were significantly higher in the septic shock group.

The APACHE II score was significantly higher in the group of non survivors (P-value =0.007).

Echocardiographic changes

Left ventricular function

The LV systolic function on admission was significantly higher in the group of non survivors (P-value = 0.018). The LVEDD did not show similar changes, and there was a significant difference in the LOS ICU and LOS HOS between the survivors and non survivors (P-value = 0.0001 and 0.001, respectively). However, daily changes in EF were noted in [Figure - 2]; EF in survivors improved and remained significantly higher in the group of survivors as compared with the group of non survivors [Table - 4].

Atrial function

Admission AEF was higher in the group of survivors ([Figure - 3]; P-value =0.21), however, subsequent daily AEF showed significant deterioration in the group of non survivors as compared with survivors (P-value = 0.02 and 0.004 on Day 4 and Day 7, respectively).

BNP

Admission BNP concentrations were elevated in the studied group 716 ±39 pg/ml and BNP concentrations were significantly higher in the group of non survivors ( p0 -value < 0.0001). BNP concentrations remained significantly higher on the 4 th and 7 th days ( P -value = 0.01 and 0.001, respectively in the group of non survivors).

Mortality Prediction

By doing a multivariate logestic regression, the predicatable variables are APACHE II score, BNP, andEF.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to determine if echocardiographic data would add prognostication to existing clinical variables in ICU patients to analyze whether atrial ejection force (AEF) represents a sensitive and reliable parameter for the detection of cardiac alteration particularly in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: 1) admission AEF did not differ between the survivors and the non surviviors, 2) admission APCHE II scores, EF, and BNP showed significant changes between survivors and non survivors, 3) AEF could not be used as an independent mortality preictor in severe sepsis and septic shock, and 4) AEF in survivors later in the course of sepsis tends to improve.

Cardiac function

The phenomenon of sepsis-related cardiomyopathy has been described in many trials. [7],[14] Parker, et al.,[15] were the first to describe left ventricular hypokinesis in septic shock in which patients with severe LVEF with an adequate LV stroke output could be maintained through acute LV dilatation. [16]

Our data showed that the admission LV systolic function was significantly higher in the group of non survivors (P-value=0.018). Daily changes in the EF were noted in [Figure - 2]. EF tended to improve and remained significantly higher in the group of survivors. Improvement in contractility may result from the resolution of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy.

Our data was supported by the study of Charpentier, et al.,..[4] who evaluated the cardiac performance in patients with sepsis by echocardiography and found an LVEF (using TTE) or a left ventricular fractional area contraction (LVFAC) using TEE of < 50% in approximately 50% of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. However, the typical pattern of left ventricular dilation in combination with an impaired LVEF was found in only one study by Ver Elst, et al,,[17] whereas in the study conducted by Charpentier, et al.,[4] ventricular dimensions were normal despite low LVEF. In a study by McLean, et al.,[18] seven patients (18% of the cohort) displayed Reversible Cardiac Dysfunction (RCD), which was characterized by an initially reduced LVEF (< 55%) with subsequent normalization of LVEF (i.e., LVEF> 55%).

Atrial function

Determination of left atrial systolic function by measuring atrial ejection force (AEF) at left ventricular relaxation enables us to assess atrial contribution to the filling of the left ventricle. [10] Thus, AEF serves equally as an indirect parameter of left ventricular diastolic function (i.e., to assess left ventricular relaxation).

With regard to atrial function, we found that admission AEF was slightly higher (non significant) in the group of survivors ([Figure - 2]: P-value = 0.210). Our hypothesis was that serial AEF may predict survival in patients with septic shock.

BNP changes

The cardiac ventricles are the main source of circulating BNP in humans. The stimulus for BNP release is the stretching of the ventricular wall as a result of either volume expansion or pressure overload. [19] BNP levels are elevated in patients with symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction and correlate with filling pressures. [20]

Admission BNP concentrations were elevated in the studied group at 716 ±393 pg/ml and BNP concentrations were significantly higher in the group of non survivors (P -value < 0.0001). BNP concentrations remained significantly higher on the 4 th and 7 th days ( P-value = 0.01 and 0.001, respectively) in the group of non survivors [Figure 4].

BNP concentrations were increased in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock regardless of the presence or absence of cardiac dysfunction. [18]

Mortality Prediction

Despite initial recovery from critical illness requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, many patients remain at risk of subsequent deterioration and death. This may result in readmission to the ICU or death in another ward or during the ICU readmission. Early identification of patients at the highest risk would allow resources to be targeted appropriately and prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality. ICU readmission rates have been advocated as a marker of ICU quality on the basis that early readmissions (within 48 hours) may indicate premature discharge or discharge to an inappropriate clinical area. [21],[22]

The APACHE prognostic scoring system is a powerful predictor of hospital mortality in the medical and surgical intensive care unit (MSICU) patient population both in North America [23],[24] and internationally. [25],[26],[27],[28] The APACHE II scoring system is commonly used in the MSICU population to prognosticate outcome and to compare acuity of medical care in different intensive care units. [22]

Our data was consistent with the predictive value of the APACHE II score for mortality; the APACHE II score was significantly higher in the group of non survivors (P-value = 0.007).

In the landmark study by Parker, et al., [7] patients were grouped according to their mortality, and patients showing left ventricular dilation and depression of LVEF had a good prognosis. Paradoxically, many studies using echocardiography showed that an impaired LVEF is associated with a poor prognosis. [4],[16] This might be explained by the fact that in patients with septic shock, the measurement of LVEF alone does not sufficiently characterize the underlying hemodynamic pattern, and that outcome depends on parameters other than LVEF.

In a recent study done by Ritter, et al.,[29] the authors concluded that cardiac index and cardiac function index (CFI) both provide prognostic information for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In another study by Sawchuk, et al.,[30] the authors mention that TTE does not improve the prediction of outcome over APACHE II in medical-surgical intensive care.

Systolic myocardial dysfunction is present in 44% of the patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In this setting, brain natriuretic peptide seems useful to detect myocardial dysfunction, and high plasma levels appear to be associated with a poor outcome of sepsis, but further studies are needed. [4]

BNP provided prognostic value for in-hospital mortality and length of stay in this mixed group of patients, which included patients with chronic cardiac dysfunction. [17]

Conclusion

In septic patients, atrial function unlike ventricular function and BNP levels could not be used as an independent predictor of mortality.

This study had several limitations. First, we tried to match the recruitment time to the time of the onset of sepsis. However, as discussed previously this is nearly an impossible task mainly due to delays in the presentation to the ICU, the presentation of symptoms, and/or the reporting of the microbiology test results. Second, the relatively small sample size may reduce the power of some analyses (comparisons). Finally, the interpretations of cardiac function might be affected by the use of α-agonists such as norepinephrine. The use of inotropes in these patients might improve their cardiac function and lead to an overestimation of cardiac variables such as LVEF.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Tawam Hospital "In affiliation with John Hopkins University", AlAin, UAE. Special thanks to all members of the Critical Care Medicine Department for their tremendous help throughout the study.[31]

References

1.Schuster DP. Predicting outcome after ICU admission. The art and science of assessing risk. Chest 1992;102:1861-70.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-29.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Krumholz HM, Douglas PS, Goldman L, Waksmonski C. Clinical utility of transthoracic two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:125-31.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4. Charpentier J, Luyt CE, Fulla Y, Vinsonneau C, Cariou A, Grabar S, et all. Brain natriuretic peptide: A marker of myocardial dysfunction and prognosis during severe sepsis. Crit Care Med 2004;32:660-5.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Kim R, Chakko S, Myerburg RJ, Kessler KM. Clinical usefulness and cost of echocardiography in patients admitted to a coronary care unit. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:1273-6.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Xie GY, Berk MR, Smith MD, Gurley JC, DeMaria AN. Prognostic value of Doppler transmitral flow patterns in patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:132-9.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Parker MM, Shelhamer JH, Bacharach SL, Green MV, Natanson C, Frederick TM, et al. Profound but reversible myocardial depression in patients with septic shock. Ann Intern Med 1984;100:483-90.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Manning WJ, Silverman DI, Katz SE, Douglas PS. Atrial ejection force: a noninvasive assessment of atrial systolic function. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:221-5.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.McLean AS, Tang B, Nalos M, Huang SJ, Stewart DE. Increased B-type natriuretic peptide level is a strong predictor for cardiac dysfunction in intensive care unit patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2003;31:21-7.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 1992;101:1644-55.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1250-6.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Annane D, Bellissant E, Cavaillon JM. Septic shock. Lancet 2005;365:63-78.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research fourth edition. University of Pennsilvania: Boston collage Lipincott U.S.A; 2001. p. 1-412  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Ognibene FP, Parker MM, Natanson C, Shelhamer JH, Parrillo JE. Depressed left ventricular performance. Response to volume infusion in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Chest 1988;93:903-10.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Parker MM, McCarthy KE, Ognibene FP, Parrillo JE. Right ventricular dysfunction and dilatation, similar to left ventricular changes, characterize the cardiac depression of septic shock in humans. Chest 1990;97:126-31.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Poelaert J, Declerck C, Vogelaers D, Colardyn F, Visser CA. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in septic shock. Intensive Care Med 1997;23:553-60.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Ver Elst KM, Spapen HD, Nguyen DN, Garbar C, Huyghens LP, Gorus FK. Cardiac troponin I and T are biological markers of left ventricular dysfunction in septic shock. Clin Chem 2000;46:650-7.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.McLean AS, Huang SJ, Hyams S, Poh G, Nalos M, Pandit R, et al. Prognostic values of B-type natriuretic peptide in severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2007;35:1019-26.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Suttner SW, Boldt J. Natriuretic peptide system. Physiology and clinical utility. Curr Opin Crit Care 2004;10:336-41.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Maisel AS, McCord J, Nowak RM, Hollander JE, Wu AH, Duc P, et al. Bedside B-type natriuretic peptide in the emergency diagnosis of heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Results from the Breathing Not Properly Multinational study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:2010-7.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Anaheim, CA. Society of Critical Care Medicine. Quality Indicators Committee. Candidate Critical Care Quality Indicators.: Society of Critical Care Medicine; 1995.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Metnitz PG, Fieux F, Jordan B Lang T, Moreno R, Le Gall JR. Critically ill patients readmitted to intensive care units-lessons to learn? Intensive Care Med 2003;29:241-8.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, et al.. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991;100:1619-36.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Wong DT, Crofts SL, Gomez M, McGuire GP, Byrick RJ. Evaluation of predictive ability of APACHE II system and hospital outcome in Canadian intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1177-83.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Zimmerman JE, Knaus WA, Judson JA, Havill JH, Trubuhovich RV, Draper EA, et al. Patient selection for intensive care: A comparison of New Zealand and United States hospitals. Crit Care Med 1988;16:318-26.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Giangiuliani G, Mancini A, Gui D. Validation of a severity of illness score (APACHE II) in a surgical intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 1989;15:519-22.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Sirio CA, Tajimi K, Tase C, Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Hirasawa H, et al. An initial comparison of intensive care in Japan and the United States. Crit Care Med 1992;20:1207-15.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Oh TE, Hutchinson R, Short S, Buckley T, Lin E, Leung D. Verification of the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation scoring system in a Hong Kong intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1993;21:698-705.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Ritter S, Rudiger A, Maggiorini M. Low cardiac function index predicts ICU mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. from 28th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine Brussels, Belgium. 18-21 March 2008. Critical Care 2008, 12:P410doi:10.1186/cc6631.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Sawchuk CW, Wong DT, Kavanagh BP, Siu SC. Transthoracic echocardiography does not improve prediction of outcome over APACHE II in medical-surgical intensive. Can J Anaesth 2003;50:305-10.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Jahns R, Naito J, Tony HP, Inselmann G. Atrial Ejection Force in Systemic Autoimmune Diseases. Cardiology 1999;92:269-74.  Back to cited text no. 31    

Copyright 2009 - Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine


The following images related to this document are available:

Photo images

[cm09015t1.jpg] [cm09015t2.jpg] [cm09015f2.jpg] [cm09015f3.jpg] [cm09015f1.jpg] [cm09015t4.jpg] [cm09015t3.jpg]
Home Faq Resources Email Bioline
© Bioline International, 1989 - 2024, Site last up-dated on 01-Sep-2022.
Site created and maintained by the Reference Center on Environmental Information, CRIA, Brazil
System hosted by the Google Cloud Platform, GCP, Brazil