| Literature DB >> 19117129 |
Muhammad Y Sheikh1, Usman Javed, Jasjit Singh, Jayanta Choudhury, Omer Deen, Kulraj Dhah, Michael W Peterson.
Abstract
Bacterial infections are common in cirrhosis and can lead to life-threatening complications. Sidestream dark-field (SDF) imaging has recently emerged as a noninvasive tool for capturing real-time video images of sublingual microcirculation in critically ill patients with sepsis. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of SDF in determining underlying infection in patients with cirrhosis. Sublingual microcirculation was compared among patients with compensated cirrhosis (Group A, n=13), cirrhosis without sepsis (Group B, n=18), cirrhosis with sepsis (Group C, n=14), and sepsis only (Group D, n=10). The blood flow was semi-quantitatively evaluated in four equal quadrants in small (10-25 mm); medium (26-50 mm); and large (51-100 mm) sublingual capillaries. The blood flow was described as no flow (0), intermittent flow (1), sluggish flow (2), and continuous flow (3). The overall flow score or microvascular flow index (MFI) was measured for quantitative assessment of microcirculation and predicting power for concurrent infection in cirrhosis. Marked impairment was observed at all levels of microvasculature in Groups B and C when compared with Group A. This effect was restricted to small vessels only when Group B was compared with Group C. MFI<1.5 was found to have highest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%) for infection in decompensated cirrhosis. SDF imaging of sublingual microcirculation can be a useful bedside diagnostic tool to assess bacterial infection in cirrhosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19117129 PMCID: PMC2778688 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-008-0664-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dig Dis Sci ISSN: 0163-2116 Impact factor: 3.199
Baseline characteristics of patients
| Group A | Group B | Group C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Mean | 40 | 55 | 54 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 9 | 11 | 7 |
| Female | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Race | |||
| Hispanic | 13 | 17 | 13 |
| White | 1 | – | – |
| Other | – | 1 | – |
| MELD score | |||
| Range | 7–10 | 8–16 | 10–29 |
| Mean | 8 | 12 | 20 |
| CTP score | |||
| Range | 5–7 | 7–11 | 9–12 |
| Mean | 6 | 8 | 11 |
| Platelets count | |||
| Range | 100–208 | 50–170 | 41–89 |
| Mean | 150 | 110 | 65 |
| Etiology | |||
| HCV | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Alcohol | 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Both | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Other | 5 | 1 | 4 |
Group A, compensated cirrhosis; Group B, decompensated cirrhosis without infection/sepsis; Group C, decompensated cirrhosis with infection/sepsis
Fig. 1Sidestream dark-field video imaging demonstrating blood flow in a cirrhosis patient with infection. The blood is measured in various sized capillaries in four quadrants of the video clip
Microvascular flow index (MFI) in the four study groups in relation to vessel size
| Vessel | Group | MFI (mean ± SD) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small | A | 2.40 ± 0.46 | 2.07–2.73 |
| B | 1.40 ± 0.52 | 1.03–1.77 | |
| C | 0.80 ± 0.48 | 0.45–1.15 | |
| D | 1.15 ± 0.34 | 0.45–1.39 | |
| Medium | A | 2.35 ± 0.42 | 2.05–2.64 |
| B | 1.40 ± 0.32 | 1.17–0.62 | |
| C | 1.25 ± 0.48 | 0.90–0.59 | |
| D | 1.55 ± 0.28 | 1.34–0.75 | |
| Large | A | 2.75 ± 0.35 | 2.50–3.00 |
| B | 1.90 ± 0.77 | 1.35–0.45 | |
| C | 1.65 ± 0.47 | 1.31–1.99 | |
| D | 2.10 ± .52 | 1.73–0.47 | |
| Meana | A | 2.50 ± 0.21 | 2.35–2.64 |
| B | 1.56 ± 0.35 | 1.31–1.81 | |
| C | 1.23 ± 0.24 | 1.06–1.40 | |
| D | 1.60 ± 0.32 | 1.37–1.82 |
Group A, compensated cirrhosis; Group B, decompensated cirrhosis without infection/sepsis; Group C, decompensated cirrhosis with infection/sepsis; Group D, sepsis without cirrhosis
aMean of all vessel types in an individual study group
Comparison of microvascular flow index (MFI) among various study groups
| Vessel type | Group | Mean MFI difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Small | A vs. B | 1.00 | <0.0001 |
| A vs. C | 1.60 | <0.0001 | |
| A vs. D | 1.25 | <0.0001 | |
| B vs. C | 0.60 | .033 | |
| B vs. D | 0.25 | 1.000 | |
| C vs. D | 0.35 | .561 | |
| Medium | A vs. B | 0.95 | <0.0001 |
| A vs. C | 1.10 | <0.0001 | |
| A vs. D | 0.80 | <0.0001 | |
| B vs. C | 0.15 | 1.000 | |
| B vs. D | 0.15 | 1.000 | |
| C vs. D | 0.30 | .529 | |
| Large | A vs. B | 0.85 | 0.009 |
| A vs. C | 1.10 | <0.0001 | |
| A vs. D | 0.65 | .074 | |
| B vs. C | 0.25 | 1.000 | |
| B vs. D | 0.20 | 1.000 | |
| C vs. D | 0.45 | .458 | |
| Meana | A vs. B | 0.93 | <0.0001 |
| A vs. C | 1.27 | <0.0001 | |
| A vs. D | 0.90 | <0.0001 | |
| B vs. C | 0.33 | .077 | |
| B vs. D | 0.03 | 1.000 | |
| C vs. D | 0.37 | .501 |
Group A, compensated cirrhosis; Group B, decompensated cirrhosis without infection/sepsis; Group C, decompensated cirrhosis with infection/sepsis; Group D, sepsis without cirrhosis
aMean of all vessel types in an individual study group
Discriminatory power of microvascular flow index (MFI) for infection/sepsis at various cut-off levels
| MFI cut off | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1.0 | 90 | 100 | 100 | 91 |
| <1.5 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| <2.0 | 100 | 50 | 60 | 100 |