Sarah J Beesley1, Emily L Wilson, Michael J Lanspa, Colin K Grissom, Sajid Shahul, Daniel Talmor, Samuel M Brown. 1. 1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT. 2Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 3Department of Anesthesia, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 4Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tachycardia is common in septic shock, but many patients with septic shock are relatively bradycardic. The prevalence, determinants, and implications of relative bradycardia (heart rate, < 80 beats/min) in septic shock are unknown. To determine mortality associated with patients who are relatively bradycardic while in septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients admitted for septic shock to study ICUs during 2005-2013. SETTING: One large academic referral hospital and two community hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between relative bradycardia and mortality, controlling for confounding with inverse probability treatment weighting using a propensity score. RESULTS: We identified 1,554 patients with septic shock, of whom 686 (44%) met criteria for relative bradycardia at some time. Twenty-eight-day mortality in this group was 21% compared to 34% in the never-bradycardic group (p < 0.001). Relatively bradycardic patients were older (65 vs 60 yr; p < 0.001) and had slightly lower illness severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 10 vs 11; p = 0.004; and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 27 vs 28; p = 0.008). After inverse probability treatment weighting, covariates were balanced, and the association between relative bradycardia and survival persisted (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative bradycardia in patients with septic shock is associated with lower mortality, even after adjustment for confounding. Our data support expanded investigation into whether inducing relative bradycardia will benefit patients with septic shock.
OBJECTIVES:Tachycardia is common in septic shock, but many patients with septic shock are relatively bradycardic. The prevalence, determinants, and implications of relative bradycardia (heart rate, < 80 beats/min) in septic shock are unknown. To determine mortality associated with patients who are relatively bradycardic while in septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients admitted for septic shock to study ICUs during 2005-2013. SETTING: One large academic referral hospital and two community hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between relative bradycardia and mortality, controlling for confounding with inverse probability treatment weighting using a propensity score. RESULTS: We identified 1,554 patients with septic shock, of whom 686 (44%) met criteria for relative bradycardia at some time. Twenty-eight-day mortality in this group was 21% compared to 34% in the never-bradycardic group (p < 0.001). Relatively bradycardic patients were older (65 vs 60 yr; p < 0.001) and had slightly lower illness severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 10 vs 11; p = 0.004; and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 27 vs 28; p = 0.008). After inverse probability treatment weighting, covariates were balanced, and the association between relative bradycardia and survival persisted (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative bradycardia in patients with septic shock is associated with lower mortality, even after adjustment for confounding. Our data support expanded investigation into whether inducing relative bradycardia will benefit patients with septic shock.
Authors: Martin Balik; Jan Rulisek; Pavel Leden; Michal Zakharchenko; Michal Otahal; Hana Bartakova; Josef Korinek Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: R Moreno; J L Vincent; R Matos; A Mendonça; F Cantraine; L Thijs; J Takala; C Sprung; M Antonelli; H Bruining; S Willatts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: R P Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Yu Inata; Giovanna Piraino; Paul W Hake; Michael O'Connor; Patrick Lahni; Vivian Wolfe; Christine Schulte; Victoria Moore; Jeanne M James; Basilia Zingarelli Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Michael J Lanspa; Sajid Shahul; Andrew Hersh; Emily L Wilson; Troy D Olsen; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Colin K Grissom; Samuel M Brown Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Samuel M Brown; Sarah J Beesley; Michael J Lanspa; Colin K Grissom; Emily L Wilson; Samir M Parikh; Todd Sarge; Daniel Talmor; Valerie Banner-Goodspeed; Victor Novack; B Taylor Thompson; Sajid Shahul Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-08-03
Authors: Eloi Guarnieri; Gilles Fecteau; Julie Berman; André Desrochers; Marie Babkine; Sylvain Nichols; David Francoz Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Ranjit Lall; Dipesh Mistry; Emma Skilton; Nafisa Boota; Scott Regan; Julian Bion; Simon Gates; Anthony C Gordon; Janet Lord; Daniel Francis McAuley; Gavin Perkins; Mervyn Singer; Duncan Young; Tony Whitehouse Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 2.692