Septic shock 3.0 criteria application in severe COVID-19 patients: An unattended sepsis population with high mortality risk.

José Pedro Cidade, L M Coelho, Vasco Costa, Rui Morais, Patrícia Moniz, Luís Morais, Pedro Fidalgo, António Tralhão, Carolina Paulino, David Nora, Bernardino Valério, Vítor Mendes, Camila Tapadinhas, Pedro Povoa
{"title":"Septic shock 3.0 criteria application in severe COVID-19 patients: An unattended sepsis population with high mortality risk.","authors":"José Pedro Cidade,&nbsp;L M Coelho,&nbsp;Vasco Costa,&nbsp;Rui Morais,&nbsp;Patrícia Moniz,&nbsp;Luís Morais,&nbsp;Pedro Fidalgo,&nbsp;António Tralhão,&nbsp;Carolina Paulino,&nbsp;David Nora,&nbsp;Bernardino Valério,&nbsp;Vítor Mendes,&nbsp;Camila Tapadinhas,&nbsp;Pedro Povoa","doi":"10.5492/wjccm.v11.i4.246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be associated with life-threatening organ dysfunction due to septic shock, frequently requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory and vasopressor support. Therefore, clear clinical criteria are pivotal for early recognition of patients more likely to need prompt organ support. Although most patients with severe COVID-19 meet the Sepsis-3.0 criteria for septic shock, it has been increasingly recognized that hyperlactatemia is frequently absent, possibly leading to an underestimation of illness severity and mortality risk.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify the proportion of severe COVID-19 patients with vasopressor support requirements, with and without hyperlactatemia, and describe their clinical outcomes and mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a single-center prospective cohort study. All adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were included in the analysis and were further divided into three groups: Sepsis group, without both criteria; Vasoplegic Shock group, with persistent hypotension and vasopressor support without hyperlactatemia; and Septic Shock 3.0 group, with both criteria. COVID-19 was diagnosed using clinical and radiologic criteria with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive RT-PCR test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>118 patients (mean age 63 years, 87% males) were included in the analysis (<i>n</i> = 51 Sepsis group, <i>n</i> = 26 Vasoplegic Shock group, and <i>n</i> = 41 Septic Shock 3.0 group). SOFA score at ICU admission and ICU length of stay were different between the groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in the Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups when compared with the Sepsis group (<i>P</i> < 0.001) without a significant difference between the former two groups (<i>P</i> = 0.713). The log rank tests of Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also different (<i>P</i> = 0.007). Ventilator-free days and vasopressor-free days were different between the Sepsis <i>vs</i> Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups (both <i>P</i> < 0.001), and similar in the last two groups (<i>P</i> = 0.128 and <i>P</i> = 0.133, respectively). Logistic regression identified the maximum dose of vasopressor therapy used (AOR 1.046; 95%CI: 1.012-1.082, <i>P</i> = 0.008) and serum lactate level (AOR 1.542; 95%CI: 1.055-2.255, <i>P</i> = 0.02) as the major explanatory variables of mortality rates (<i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> 0.79).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In severe COVID-19 patients, the Sepsis 3.0 criteria of septic shock may exclude approximately one third of patients with a similarly high risk of a poor outcome and mortality rate, which should be equally addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":66959,"journal":{"name":"世界危重病急救学杂志(英文版)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/09/f1/WJCCM-11-246.PMC9305684.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"世界危重病急救学杂志(英文版)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v11.i4.246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be associated with life-threatening organ dysfunction due to septic shock, frequently requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory and vasopressor support. Therefore, clear clinical criteria are pivotal for early recognition of patients more likely to need prompt organ support. Although most patients with severe COVID-19 meet the Sepsis-3.0 criteria for septic shock, it has been increasingly recognized that hyperlactatemia is frequently absent, possibly leading to an underestimation of illness severity and mortality risk.

Aim: To identify the proportion of severe COVID-19 patients with vasopressor support requirements, with and without hyperlactatemia, and describe their clinical outcomes and mortality.

Methods: We performed a single-center prospective cohort study. All adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were included in the analysis and were further divided into three groups: Sepsis group, without both criteria; Vasoplegic Shock group, with persistent hypotension and vasopressor support without hyperlactatemia; and Septic Shock 3.0 group, with both criteria. COVID-19 was diagnosed using clinical and radiologic criteria with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive RT-PCR test.

Results: 118 patients (mean age 63 years, 87% males) were included in the analysis (n = 51 Sepsis group, n = 26 Vasoplegic Shock group, and n = 41 Septic Shock 3.0 group). SOFA score at ICU admission and ICU length of stay were different between the groups (P < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in the Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups when compared with the Sepsis group (P < 0.001) without a significant difference between the former two groups (P = 0.713). The log rank tests of Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also different (P = 0.007). Ventilator-free days and vasopressor-free days were different between the Sepsis vs Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups (both P < 0.001), and similar in the last two groups (P = 0.128 and P = 0.133, respectively). Logistic regression identified the maximum dose of vasopressor therapy used (AOR 1.046; 95%CI: 1.012-1.082, P = 0.008) and serum lactate level (AOR 1.542; 95%CI: 1.055-2.255, P = 0.02) as the major explanatory variables of mortality rates (R 2 0.79).

Conclusion: In severe COVID-19 patients, the Sepsis 3.0 criteria of septic shock may exclude approximately one third of patients with a similarly high risk of a poor outcome and mortality rate, which should be equally addressed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

脓毒症休克3.0标准在重症COVID-19患者中的应用:一个高死亡风险的无人护理脓毒症人群
背景:2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)可能与感染性休克引起的危及生命的器官功能障碍有关,经常需要重症监护病房(ICU)住院,并提供呼吸和血管加压药物支持。因此,明确的临床标准对于早期识别更可能需要及时器官支持的患者至关重要。尽管大多数重症COVID-19患者符合脓毒症-3.0的脓毒症休克标准,但越来越多的人认识到,高乳酸血症往往不存在,这可能导致低估疾病严重程度和死亡风险。目的:了解合并和不合并高乳酸血症的重症COVID-19患者有血管加压素支持需求的比例,并描述其临床结局和死亡率。方法:我们进行了一项单中心前瞻性队列研究。所有入住ICU的COVID-19成年患者纳入分析,并进一步分为三组:脓毒症组,没有两个标准;血管截瘫休克组,伴持续性低血压和血管加压药物支持,无高乳酸血症;感染性休克3.0组,两种标准均符合。采用严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR阳性的临床和放射学标准诊断COVID-19。结果:纳入118例患者,平均年龄63岁,男性87%,其中脓毒症组51例,血管截瘫休克组26例,脓毒症休克3.0组41例。两组患者入院时SOFA评分及ICU住院时间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。与脓毒症组相比,血管截瘫性休克和脓毒症休克3.0组的死亡率显著升高(P < 0.001),两组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.713)。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线的对数秩检验也有差异(P = 0.007)。脓毒症vs血管性休克和脓毒症休克3.0组无呼吸机天数和无血管加压剂天数差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001),后两组无呼吸机天数相似(P = 0.128和P = 0.133)。Logistic回归确定了使用血管加压剂治疗的最大剂量(AOR 1.046;95%CI: 1.012-1.082, P = 0.008)和血清乳酸水平(AOR 1.542;95%CI: 1.055 ~ 2.255, P = 0.02)为死亡率的主要解释变量(R = 0.79)。结论:在重症COVID-19患者中,脓毒症3.0标准可能会排除大约三分之一具有类似不良结局和死亡率高风险的患者,应平等对待。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
216
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信