World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2021, 12(4): 293-298 doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2021.04.007

Orginal Articles

Development of septic shock and prognostic assessment in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease outside Wuhan, China

Ren-qi Yao1,2, Chao Ren1,2, Di Ren1,3, Jin-xiu Li3, Ying Li1, Xue-yan Liu4, Lei Huang5, Yong Liu6, Mian Peng7, Yong-wen Feng,1, Yong-ming Yao,1,2

1Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Second People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518035, China

2Trauma Research Center, the Fourth Medical Center and Medical Innovation Research Department of the Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China

3Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518020, China

4Department of Critical Care Medicine, the People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518020, China

5Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518035, China

6Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, Shenzhen 518110, China

7Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518001, China

Corresponding authors: Yong-wen Feng, Email:fengyongwen2008@126.com;Yong-ming Yao, Email:c_ff@sina.com.

Received: 2020-08-20   Accepted: 2021-04-16  

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The study aims to illustrate the clinical characteristics and development of septic shock in intensive care unit (ICU) patients confirmed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and to perform a comprehensive analysis of the association between septic shock and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
METHODS: Patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were admitted to the ICU of the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen from January 1 to February 7, 2020, were enrolled. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with and without septic shock.
RESULTS: In this study, 35 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included. Among them, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-67 years), and 10 (28.4%) patients were female. The median ICU length of stay was 16 days (IQR 8-23 days). Three (8.6%) patients died during hospitalization. Nine (25.7%) patients developed septic shock in the ICU, and these patients had a significantly higher incidence of organ dysfunction and a worse prognosis than patients without septic shock.
CONCLUSIONS: Septic shock is associated with a poor outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients and is one of the hallmarks of the severity of patients receiving ICU care. A dysregulated immune response, uncontrolled inflammation, and coagulation disorders are strongly associated with the development and progression of COVID-19-related septic shock.

Keywords: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Coronavirus disease; Intensive care unit; Septic shock; Immune response

PDF (229KB) Metadata Metrics Related articles Export EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  Favorite

Cite this article

Ren-qi Yao, Chao Ren, Di Ren, Jin-xiu Li, Ying Li, Xue-yan Liu, Lei Huang, Yong Liu, Mian Peng, Yong-wen Feng, Yong-ming Yao. Development of septic shock and prognostic assessment in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease outside Wuhan, China. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2021, 12(4): 293-298 doi:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2021.04.007

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has gradually become a global health crisis due to a rapid increase in confirmed cases worldwide. As of June 15, 2021, more than 116,000 patients had been diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in China, and more than 175 million cases were confirmed worldwide.[1] The large number of hospitalized patients poses a substantial challenge to the medical system and frontline physicians, especially those dealing with critical illnesses.[2] In Shenzhen, an important special economic zone that shares a large floating population with Hubei Province, a total of 462 COVID-19 patients had been treated in the designated hospital as of May 7, 2020, including 458 patients who were discharged from the hospital, three patients who died, and one patient who remained hospitalized.[3] The management of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) appears to be challenging due to the absence of specific treatments.[4]

Septic shock, a severe subtype of sepsis, is the leading cause of mortality in the ICU. Septic shock is critically involved in the severity of disease and poor outcomes in patients with serious viral infection, such as those involving influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV).[5,6,7] In this study, we aim to evaluate the development of septic shock in all ICU patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen and to perform a comprehensive comparison of outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without septic shock.

METHODS

Study population

This single-center observational study was conducted in the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen. All consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen from January 11 to February 7, 2020, were screened. Patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who had been transferred to the ICU were potentially eligible for inclusion in the current analysis. We excluded patients who stayed in the ICU for less than 72 hours. The laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 was in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) interim guidance and was performed by Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention.[8] In addition, the need to obtain oral consent from ICU patients or their relatives was waived due to the urgent demand for clinical data.

Data extraction

The research team and expert panel of Shenzhen on COVID-19 reviewed the clinical electronic medical records of ICU patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, including their medical histories, nursing records, laboratory findings, chest X-rays, and computed tomographic (CT) images. The clinical data of all included patients were collected with predesigned data record forms that were modified versions of the standardized International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium case report forms.[9] We extracted data on demographic characteristics, medical profiles, exposure histories, coexisting comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory results, blood gas analyses, radiological findings, and ICU interventions. To further determine changes in the immune response in critically ill COVID-19 patients, the absolute counts of peripheral blood T cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and the CD4+/CD8+ ratio were also taken into consideration. Additionally, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were calculated. To monitor the progression of severe cases of COVID-19, dynamic changes in clinical indicators related to organ function and immune and inflammatory responses were tracked from day 1 to day 23 after ICU admission at two-day intervals. Two experienced investigators independently assessed the authenticity and accuracy of the collected data.

Definitions and outcome measurement

We diagnosed sepsis and septic shock in accordance with the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria, in which sepsis was defined as SOFA score ≥2 points in addition to confirmed or suspected infection, and septic shock was identified by the need for vasopressors to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation.[10,11] The diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was based on the Berlin definition.[12] The occurrence and stage of acute kidney injury (AKI) were defined based on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definition.[13] Patients with cardiac injury were characterized by serum concentrations of cardiac biomarkers higher than the 99th percentile of the upper reference limit and new abnormalities on electrocardiography or echocardiography.[14] The confirmation of coagulation disorders was based on laboratory abnormalities in the coagulation profile. Clinical outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and discharge rate, were obtained, and the duration of mechanical ventilation was also recorded.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics of all characteristics of the enrolled ICU patients with COVID-19 were presented. Continuous variables were summarized as the means (standard deviation [SD] and standard error of the mean [SEM]) or medians (interquartile range [IQR]), while categorical or rank data were reported as the counts and proportions. To characterize the differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between patients with and without septic shock in the ICU, Student’s t-test, the Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used, as appropriate. Clinical data with repeated measures were compared using the linear mixed model.

The aforementioned statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 23.0) and R (version 3.6.1). A two-tailed P-value less than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

RESULTS

Patients

A total of 391 patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19 in the Third People’s Hospital of Shenzhen as of February 7, 2020, were screened. Of those patients, 351 patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 35 critically ill patients met our inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the current study. Among the included patients, the median age was 64 years (IQR 59-67 years), and 10 (28.4%) patients were female. The most common comorbidities among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU were hypertension (12 [34.3%]), followed by diabetes (16 [17.1%]), coronary heart disease (16 [17.1%]), chronic bronchitis (1 [2.9%]), malignant tumors (1 [2.9%]), and cerebrovascular disease (1 [2.9%]). The patients had a median SOFA score of 4 (IQR 3-5) and a median APACHE II score of 7 (IQR 7-9) at ICU admission. The median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 30 days (IQR 24-33 days), and the median ICU LOS was 16 days (IQR 8-23 days). As of our observational endpoints, 3 (8.6%) critically ill COVID-19 patients died during hospitalization.

Complications and treatments

All 35 critically ill patients with COVID-19 had sepsis at ICU admission, and nine (25.7%) developed septic shock. A total of 34 patients had ARDS, and the secondary infection were detected in 16 (45.7%) ICU patients. Other common complications were AKI (7 [20.0%]), acute cardiac injury (3 [8.6%]), acute liver injury (3 [8.6%]), and coagulopathy (3 [8.6%]).

All of the patients received antiviral therapy. Twenty-six (74.3%) patients were treated with antibiotics, and 30 (85.7%) patients received glucocorticoids during their ICU stay. Human recombinant immunoglobulin and thymalfasin were administered to 32 (91.4%) and 31 (88.6%) patients, respectively. With regard to organ support, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (33 [94.3%]) was the most frequently used intervention, followed by invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (18 [51.4%]), high-flow oxygen inhalation (15 [42.9%]), continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) (7 [20.0%]), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (5 [14.3%]). Vasoactive drugs were used in 10 (28.6%) patients with a low MAP despite sufficient fluid resuscitation.

Septic shock in COVID-19 patients

A total of 9 (25.7%) COVID-19 patients progressed to septic shock during their ICU stays. As shown in Table 1, a significantly higher incidence of organ dysfunction, including AKI, acute cardiac injury, and acute liver injury, was noted in patients with septic shock than in those without septic shock. Patients with septic shock had a significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation (median days, 25.1 days [IQR 18.6-29.3 days] vs. 7.4 days [IQR 4.8-11.4 days]; P<0.001) and ICU LOS (median days, 24.0 days [IQR 23.0-26.0 days] vs. 10.0 days [IQR 6.0-17.5 days]; P<0.001) than those without septic shock. Three patients with septic shock died.

Table 1   Comparison between septic shock and non-septic shock COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU

CharacteristicsSeptic shock (n=9) Non-septic shock (n=26) P-value
Demographic characteristics
Age, years, median (IQR)65.0 (60.0-69.0)63.0 (59.0-66.3)0.446
Female, n (%)3 (33.3)7 (26.9)0.694
Complications, n (%)
ARDS9 (100.0)25 (96.2)0.437
Secondary infection9 (100.0)7 (26.9)<0.001
Acute kidney injury5 (55.6)2 (7.7)0.003
Acute cardiac injury3 (33.3)0 (0)0.003
Acute liver injury3 (33.3)0 (0)0.003
Coagulopathy3 (33.3)0 (0)0.003
Treatments
IMV, n (%)9 (100.0)9 (34.6)<0.001
MV duration, days, median (IQR)25.1 (18.6-29.3)7.4 (4.8-11.4)<0.001
ECMO, n (%)4 (44.4)0 (0)<0.001
Vasoactive agents, n (%)9 (100.0)1 (3.8)<0.001
Prognosis
Onset of symptoms to hospital admission, days, median (IQR)6.0 (2.0-10.5)4.0 (2.8-7.0)0.469
Hospital admission to ICU admission, days, median (IQR)9.0 (3.0-10.5)6.5 (3.0-9.3)0.590
Onset of ICU admission to septic shock, days, median (IQR)5.0 (3.0-7.0)NANA
Length of stay in hospital, median, days, median (IQR)33.0 (28.5-34.5)29.5 (23.0-32.3)0.086
Length of stay in ICU, days, median (IQR)24.0 (23.0-26.0)10.0 (6.0-17.5)<0.001
Discharge from hospital, n (%)0 (0)4 (15.4)0.110
Discharge from ICU, n (%)4 (44.4)26 (100.0)<0.001
Death, n (%)3 (33.3)0 (0)0.003

ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; IMV: invasive mechanical ventilation; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; NA: not applicable. Data were presented as median (IQR); n (%), which referred to the total number of patients with available data. P values indicated differences between septic shock and non-septic shock patients, in which P<0.05 was deemed as statistical significance.

New window| CSV


Patients with septic shock had significantly altered counts of T cells, CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells compared to those without septic shock (supplementary Figures 1 and 2). Concomitantly, patients with septic shock showed hyperactive inflammatory responses, accompanied by coagulation dysfunction and elevated levels of alanine aminotransferase and blood urea nitrogen over time compared to those without septic shock.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the clinical features and the development of septic shock in COVID-19 patients, and further provided a detailed discussion of non-surviving patients. Of the 391 patients who were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35 patients were critically ill and admitted to the ICU. Most of these patients were older men (71.4%, median age 64 years) complicated with hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Sepsis was the most common complication of COVID-19 and was closely related to disease severity, as all critically ill patients in the ICU had sepsis. We further evaluated the development of septic shock, which was a serious stage of sepsis, and found that 9 (25.7%) patients developed septic shock in the ICU. After 30 days of observation, 30 (85.7%) patients were discharged from the ICU, and four were discharged from the hospital. The median interval from hospital admission to ICU admission was 7 days, and the median ICU LOS was 16 days. As of our observational endpoint, a total of three patients died due to irreversible multiple organ failure, and the overall mortality rate of confirmed COVID-19 patients in Shenzhen was 0.72%, which was significantly lower than that reported in Wuhan, China.

Septic shock is a hallmark for the severity and prognosis of COVID-19 in the ICU. Herein, we found no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between patients with and without septic shock, but the incidences of complications, such as ARDS, AKI, acute cardiac injury, acute liver injury, and coagulopathy, were obviously higher in patients with septic shock than in those without septic shock. These severe complications led to the application of more advanced supportive measures, including long-term IMV and even ECMO. Furthermore, compared to patients without septic shock, those with septic shock had longer stays in the ICU and a higher mortality rate. In fact, septic shock is considered a lethal condition in patients with severe viral infection, such as those involving influenza A, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, and is an independent risk factor for mortality.[7,15-17] Habib et al[7] reported that patients with MERS-CoV infection were more likely to die when complicated by septic shock and/or multiple organ damage than patients with ARDS, suggesting a relatively better predictive performance of septic shock in the prognostic assessment. Even though the overall mortality of patients outside Wuhan was markedly lower than the rate of mortality in Wuhan, the development of septic shock was associated with a mortality rate of approximately 30% in this cohort.[18, 19]

We further performed dynamic monitoring of serum indicators of organ dysfunction and found that compared to patients without septic shock, those with septic shock had significant disorders of the liver, kidney, and coagulation system, which were responsible for mortality. Therefore, the timely recognition and prompt treatment of multiple organ dysfunction are essential for improving the prognosis of patients who are critically ill with COVID-19. A dysregulated immune response and uncontrolled inflammation are considered the major causes of organ injury and death in COVID-19 patients.[20] Most critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially those with septic shock, have an imbalance between the innate and adaptive immune responses. The T lymphocyte counts, including both helper T lymphocytes and cytotoxic T lymphocytes, are found to be significantly reduced in patients with septic shock, implying that the innate immune system response is dominant. Lymphopenia is commonly observed in COVID-19 patients.[18,21] However, the counts of blood neutrophils were maintained in the normal range in most patients with imported COVID-19 cases.[14,21-23] In this study, neutrophil counts were obviously higher in septic shock patients than in patients without septic shock, suggesting that a persistent imbalance between innate and adaptive immune responses might contribute to the deterioration of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

An uncontrolled inflammatory response, one of the outward signs of a dysregulated immune response, has been implicated as an important cause of organ injury in patients with COVID-19; this response is also termed a cytokine storm.[20] Patients with septic shock had significantly higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) than patients without septic shock. Persistent exposure to inflammatory insults may jeopardize the structural and functional integrity of multiple organs. Of note, the concentration of blood IL-6 was not significantly different in the early stage, but it was markedly increased in patients with septic shock on day 17 after ICU admission. However, CRP levels peaked twice in COVID-19 patients with septic shock, and the latter peak occurred at the same time as the excessive release of IL-6. This phenomenon might be due to the following reasons. First, the development of a secondary infection in septic shock patients could have been responsible for the later surge in IL-6. The secondary infection, involving various kinds of bacteria and fungi, is a common complication in patients with severe viral infection, especially in those with prolonged ICU stays. A study by Choi et al[24] reported that nosocomial sepsis was critically involved in the poor outcomes of patients with SARS. Yang and colleagues[19] found that 13.5% of COVID-19 patients contracted hospital-acquired pneumonia in the ICU in Wuhan; in addition, one patient developed bacteremia, and one developed urinary tract infection. In this cohort, however, the secondary infection was identified in 45.7% of the COVID-19 patients in the ICU, which might account for the later surge in inflammatory cytokines. Second, in our study, most COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU were older men, which might account for the later timing of the surge in the level of IL-6. Third, other inflammatory mediators, such as high mobility group box-1 protein, might be responsible for the later development of systemic inflammation in severe COVID-19 patients, owing to their pathogenic role in SARS.[25]

Several limitations should be noted when interpreting our findings. First, even though we included all COVID-19 patients who received ICU care in Shenzhen, further studies with large sample size are needed to illustrate the development of septic shock and its relationship with the outcomes in critically ill patients with imported cases of COVID-19. Second, we only identified the reduction in helper and cytotoxic T lymphocyte counts in patients with severe COVID-19. The activity and changes in specific phenotypes of T lymphocytes could provide deep insights into the host adaptive immune system response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Third, the endpoint for the mortality assessment was 30 days in our study, but long-term mortality is also essential to further prognostic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Septic shock appears to be involved in the poor outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients and is one of the hallmarks of the severity of disease in ICU patients. The interplay between pathogens, involving both unresolved SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary fungal and bacterial infection, and a dysregulated immune response might contribute to intractable inflammatory organ injury and poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Funding: None.

Ethical approval: The hospital’s Commission on the Ethics of Medicine approved the current study (202003009007).

Conflicts of interests: All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Contributors: RQY, CR, DR, YWF, and YMY contribute equally to this manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.

All the supplementary files in this paper are available at http://wjem.com.cn.

Reference

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019)situation reports: weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19-15 June 2021. Available at https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports .

URL     [Cited within: 1]

Zhang Y, Xu JY, Li H, Cao B.

A novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: a call for action

Chest. 2020; 157(4):e99-101.

DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.014      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Shenzhen Municipal Health Commission. Updates on COVID-19 cases in Shenzhen. Available at http://wjw.sz.gov.cn/yqxx/202005/t20200508_19208977.htm .

URL     [Cited within: 1]

Liu Y, Li J, Feng Y.

Critical care response to a hospital outbreak of the 2019-nCoV infection in Shenzhen

China. Crit Care. 2020; 24(1):56.

[Cited within: 1]

Joynt GM, Yap HY.

SARS in the intensive care unit

Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2004; 6(3):228-33.

DOI:10.1007/s11908-004-0013-6      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Minchole E, Figueredo AL, Omeñaca M, Panadero C, Royo L, Vengoechea JJ, et al.

Seasonal influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus and severe outcomes: a reason for broader vaccination in non-elderly, at-risk people

PLoS One. 2016; 11(11):e0165711.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0165711      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Habib AMG, Ali MAE, Zouaoui BR, Taha MAH, Mohammed BS, Saquib N.

Clinical outcomes among hospital patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection

BMC Infect Dis. 2019; 19(1):870.

DOI:10.1186/s12879-019-4555-5      URL     [Cited within: 3]

World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance. Available at:https://www.who.int/publications-detail/clinical-managementof-severe-acute- respiratory-infection-when-novelcoronavirus-(ncov)-infection-is-suspected .

URL     [Cited within: 1]

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). COVID-19 resources.Available at https://isaric.tghn.org/.

[Cited within: 1]

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al.

The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3)

JAMA. 2016; 315(8):801-10.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.0287      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016

Intensive Care Med. 2017; 43(3):304-77.

DOI:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6      URL     [Cited within: 1]

ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, et al.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition

JAMA. 2012; 307(23):2526-33.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2012.5669      PMID:22797452      [Cited within: 1]

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg &lt; PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg &lt; PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P &lt;.001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P &lt;.001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P &lt;.001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.

Kellum JA, Lameire N, KDIGO AKI Guideline Work Group.

Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 1)

Crit Care. 2013; 17(1):204.

DOI:10.1186/cc11454      PMID:23394211      [Cited within: 1]

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever, international, multidisciplinary, clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. In this review we summarize key aspects of the guideline including definition and staging of AKI, as well as evaluation and nondialytic management. Contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy will be addressed in a separate review. Treatment recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided.

Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al.

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

China. Lancet. 2020; 395(10223):497-506.

[Cited within: 2]

Khemasuwan D, Sorensen J, Griffin DC.

Predictive variables for failure in administration of intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator/deoxyribonuclease in patients with complicated parapneumonic effusions/empyema

Chest. 2018; 154(3):550-6.

DOI:S0012-3692(18)30237-X      PMID:29425674      [Cited within: 1]

Combined intrapleural therapy with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and deoxyribonuclease (DNase) has been shown to reduce the need for surgical intervention for complicated pleural effusion/empyema (CPE/empyema). For patients in whom tPA/DNase is likely to fail, however, receipt of this therapy may simply delay the inevitable. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for failure of combined intrapleural therapy.We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received intrapleural tPA/DNase for the treatment of CPE/empyema. Clinical variables included demographic data, radiographic parameters at time of diagnosis, and results from pleural fluid analysis. We used gradient boosted trees-an ensemble machine learning technique, with hyperparameter tuning to mitigate overfitting-to rank the importance of 19 candidate clinical variables with respect to their ability to predict failure of tPA/DNase therapy.We identified 84 patients who received intrapleural tPA/DNase for the treatment of complicated pleural effusions/empyema over a 5-year period. Resolution of CPE/empyema with intrapleural tPA/DNase was achieved in two-thirds of the patients (n = 57). Of the 19 candidate predictors of tPA/DNase failure, the presence of pleural thickening was found to be the most important (48% relative importance), followed by the presence of an abscess or necrotizing pneumonia (24%), the pleural protein level (6%), and the presence of loculated effusion (4%).Our analysis found that the presence of pleural thickening and the presence of an abscess/necrotizing pneumonia helps to triage patients in whom combined intrapleural therapy is likely to fail. The results warrant further study and validation in a prospective multicenter study.Copyright © 2018 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Lau AC, Yam LY, So LK.

Management of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

Int J Med Sci. 2004; 1(1):1-10.

DOI:10.14445/23939117/IJMS-V1I2P101      URL    

Yang Y, Guo F, Zhao W, Gu Q, Huang M, Cao Q, et al.

Novel avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) in critically ill patients in China

Crit Care Med. 2015; 43(2):339-45.

DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000695      PMID:25365721      [Cited within: 1]

In March 2013, human infection with a novel avian-origin reassortment influenza A (H7N9) virus was identified in China. A total of 26 cases were confirmed and treated in Jiangsu. All the patients had findings consistent with pneumonia and were admitted to an ICU, which pose a threat to human health. We aimed to provide the clinical features, treatment, and prognosis of the critically ill patients with H7N9 viral infection.A retrospective cohort study.Eight closed ICUs in general hospitals distributed throughout the Jiangsu Provincial, China.Patients infected with influenza A (H7N9) virus from March 20, 2013, through May 1, 2013, in Jiangsu Province were included.None.Twenty-seven patients infected with H7N9 virus were identified in Jiangsu. Of these, 26 were hospitalized. The median age was 54.5 years, and 18 patients (69.2%) were men. The most common symptoms at the onset of illness were high fever and cough. White cell counts were normal or decreased. All the patients had findings consistent with pneumonia. Twenty-four patients (92.3%) developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 10 (38.5%) developed septic shock quickly after the onset of illness. Treatment with antiviral drugs was initiated in all the patients at a median of 8 days after the onset of illness. Mortality was 19.2% at 28 days and 30.8% at 90 days. Based on multiple logistic regression analysis, septic shock associated with severe hypoxemia was the only independent risk factor for mortality.Infection with novel avian-origin reassortment influenza A (H7N9) virus is characterized by high fever, cough, and severe respiratory failure and is associated with a high mortality. These data provide some general understandings for the early identification, ICU treatment, and short-term prognosis of hospitalized critical patients with H7N9.

Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al.

Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China

JAMA. 2020; 323(11):1061-9.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.1585      URL     [Cited within: 2]

Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H, et al.

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study

Lancet Respir Med. 2020; 8(5):475-481.

DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5      URL     [Cited within: 2]

Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, Zhang J, Huang L, Zhang C, et al.

Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Lancet Respir Med. 2020; 8(4):420-2.

DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X      URL     [Cited within: 2]

Xu XW, Wu XX, Jiang XG, Xu KJ, Ying LJ, Ma CL, et al.

Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series

BMJ. 2020; 368:m606.

[Cited within: 2]

Chang D, Lin M, Wei L, Xie L, Zhu G, Dela Cruz CS, et al.

Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of novel coronavirus infections involving 13 patients outside Wuhan, China

JAMA. 2020; 323(11):1092-3.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.1623      PMID:32031568     

Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Lancet. 2020; 395:507-13.

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Choi KW, Chau TN, Tsang O, Tso E, Chiu MC, Tong WL, et al.

Outcomes and prognostic factors in 267 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong

Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139(9):715-23.

DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-139-9-200311040-00005      URL     [Cited within: 1]

Chen GQ, Chen DZ, Li JH, Czura CJ, Tracey KJ, Sama AE, et al.

Pathogenic role of HMGB1 in SARS?

Med Hypotheses. 2004; 63(4):691-5.

DOI:10.1016/j.mehy.2004.01.037      URL     [Cited within: 1]

/