通过斑点追踪超声心动图纵向应变确定的脓毒性心肌病患者死亡率:最新系统综述和荟萃分析以及试验序列分析

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Andrzej Pruszczyk , Mateusz Zawadka , Pawel Andruszkiewicz , Luigi LaVia , Antoine Herpain , Ryota Sato , Siddharth Dugar , Michelle S. Chew , Filippo Sanfilippo
{"title":"通过斑点追踪超声心动图纵向应变确定的脓毒性心肌病患者死亡率:最新系统综述和荟萃分析以及试验序列分析","authors":"Andrzej Pruszczyk ,&nbsp;Mateusz Zawadka ,&nbsp;Pawel Andruszkiewicz ,&nbsp;Luigi LaVia ,&nbsp;Antoine Herpain ,&nbsp;Ryota Sato ,&nbsp;Siddharth Dugar ,&nbsp;Michelle S. Chew ,&nbsp;Filippo Sanfilippo","doi":"10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Septic cardiomyopathy is associated with poor outcomes but its definition remains unclear. In a previous meta-analysis, left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) showed significant prognostic value in septic patients, but findings were not robust due to a limited number of studies, differences in effect size and no adjustment for confounders.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted an updated systematic review (PubMed and Scopus up to 14.02.2023) and meta-analysis to investigate the association between LS and survival in septic patients. We included studies reporting global (from three apical views) or regional LS (one or two apical windows). A secondary analysis evaluated the association between LV ejection fraction (EF) and survival using data from the selected studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included fourteen studies (1678 patients, survival 69.6%) and demonstrated an association between better performance (more negative LS) and survival with a mean difference (MD) of −1.45%[−2.10, −0.80] (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001;I<sup>2</sup> = 42%). No subgroup differences were found stratifying studies according to number of views used to calculate LS (<em>p</em> = 0.31;I<sup>2</sup> = 16%), severity of sepsis (<em>p</em> = 0.42;I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and sepsis criteria (<em>p</em> = 0.59;I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Trial sequential analysis and sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary findings. Grade of evidence was low. In the included studies, thirteen reported LVEF and we found an association between higher LVEF and survival (MD = 2.44% [0.44,4.45]; <em>p</em> = 0.02;I<sup>2</sup> = 42%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We confirmed that more negative LS values are associated with higher survival in septic patients. The clinical relevance of this difference and whether the use of LS may improve understanding of septic cardiomyopathy and prognostication deserve further investigation. The association found between LVEF and survival is of unlikely clinical meaning.</p></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><p>PROSPERO number CRD42023432354</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48762,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","volume":"43 2","pages":"Article 101339"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352556823001479/pdfft?md5=1a1c87b516cb12662a2b08a0376701ed&pid=1-s2.0-S2352556823001479-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mortality in patients with septic cardiomyopathy identified by longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis\",\"authors\":\"Andrzej Pruszczyk ,&nbsp;Mateusz Zawadka ,&nbsp;Pawel Andruszkiewicz ,&nbsp;Luigi LaVia ,&nbsp;Antoine Herpain ,&nbsp;Ryota Sato ,&nbsp;Siddharth Dugar ,&nbsp;Michelle S. Chew ,&nbsp;Filippo Sanfilippo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Septic cardiomyopathy is associated with poor outcomes but its definition remains unclear. In a previous meta-analysis, left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) showed significant prognostic value in septic patients, but findings were not robust due to a limited number of studies, differences in effect size and no adjustment for confounders.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted an updated systematic review (PubMed and Scopus up to 14.02.2023) and meta-analysis to investigate the association between LS and survival in septic patients. We included studies reporting global (from three apical views) or regional LS (one or two apical windows). A secondary analysis evaluated the association between LV ejection fraction (EF) and survival using data from the selected studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included fourteen studies (1678 patients, survival 69.6%) and demonstrated an association between better performance (more negative LS) and survival with a mean difference (MD) of −1.45%[−2.10, −0.80] (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001;I<sup>2</sup> = 42%). No subgroup differences were found stratifying studies according to number of views used to calculate LS (<em>p</em> = 0.31;I<sup>2</sup> = 16%), severity of sepsis (<em>p</em> = 0.42;I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and sepsis criteria (<em>p</em> = 0.59;I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Trial sequential analysis and sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary findings. Grade of evidence was low. In the included studies, thirteen reported LVEF and we found an association between higher LVEF and survival (MD = 2.44% [0.44,4.45]; <em>p</em> = 0.02;I<sup>2</sup> = 42%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We confirmed that more negative LS values are associated with higher survival in septic patients. The clinical relevance of this difference and whether the use of LS may improve understanding of septic cardiomyopathy and prognostication deserve further investigation. The association found between LVEF and survival is of unlikely clinical meaning.</p></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><p>PROSPERO number CRD42023432354</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 101339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352556823001479/pdfft?md5=1a1c87b516cb12662a2b08a0376701ed&pid=1-s2.0-S2352556823001479-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352556823001479\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352556823001479","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景脓毒症心肌病与不良预后有关,但其定义仍不明确。在之前的一项荟萃分析中,左心室纵向应变(LS)在脓毒症患者中显示出显著的预后价值,但由于研究数量有限、效应大小不同以及未对混杂因素进行调整,研究结果并不可靠。我们纳入了报告整体 LS(三个心尖切面)或区域 LS(一个或两个心尖切面)的研究。结果我们纳入了 14 项研究(1678 名患者,存活率 69.6%),结果表明更好的表现(更多阴性 LS)与存活率之间存在关联,平均差(MD)为-1.45%[-2.10,-0.80](P <0.0001;I2 = 42%)。根据用于计算LS的观察次数(p = 0.31;I2 = 16%)、脓毒症严重程度(p = 0.42;I2 = 0%)和脓毒症标准(p = 0.59;I2 = 0%)对研究进行分层,未发现亚组差异。试验序列分析和敏感性分析证实了主要研究结果。证据等级较低。在纳入的研究中,13 项研究报告了 LVEF,我们发现 LVEF 越高,生存率越高(MD = 2.44% [0.44,4.45];P = 0.02;I2 = 42%)。这种差异的临床意义以及 LS 的使用是否能提高对脓毒症心肌病的认识和预后的判断值得进一步研究。在 LVEF 和存活率之间发现的关联不太可能具有临床意义。注册PROSPERO 编号 CRD42023432354
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mortality in patients with septic cardiomyopathy identified by longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background

Septic cardiomyopathy is associated with poor outcomes but its definition remains unclear. In a previous meta-analysis, left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) showed significant prognostic value in septic patients, but findings were not robust due to a limited number of studies, differences in effect size and no adjustment for confounders.

Methods

We conducted an updated systematic review (PubMed and Scopus up to 14.02.2023) and meta-analysis to investigate the association between LS and survival in septic patients. We included studies reporting global (from three apical views) or regional LS (one or two apical windows). A secondary analysis evaluated the association between LV ejection fraction (EF) and survival using data from the selected studies.

Results

We included fourteen studies (1678 patients, survival 69.6%) and demonstrated an association between better performance (more negative LS) and survival with a mean difference (MD) of −1.45%[−2.10, −0.80] (p < 0.0001;I2 = 42%). No subgroup differences were found stratifying studies according to number of views used to calculate LS (p = 0.31;I2 = 16%), severity of sepsis (p = 0.42;I2 = 0%), and sepsis criteria (p = 0.59;I2 = 0%). Trial sequential analysis and sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary findings. Grade of evidence was low. In the included studies, thirteen reported LVEF and we found an association between higher LVEF and survival (MD = 2.44% [0.44,4.45]; p = 0.02;I2 = 42%).

Conclusions

We confirmed that more negative LS values are associated with higher survival in septic patients. The clinical relevance of this difference and whether the use of LS may improve understanding of septic cardiomyopathy and prognostication deserve further investigation. The association found between LVEF and survival is of unlikely clinical meaning.

Registration

PROSPERO number CRD42023432354

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine (formerly Annales Françaises d''Anesthésie et de Réanimation) publishes in English the highest quality original material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine.
×
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