BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic management is of paramount importance in patients with septic shock. Echocardiography has been increasingly used in assessing volume status and cardiac function. However, whether the utilization of echocardiography has an impact on prognosis is unknown. Thus, we intended to explore its effect on the outcomes of patients with septic shock. METHODS: The study was based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database. Septic shock patients were divided into two groups according to the usage of echocardiography during the onset of septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the usage of inotropes, ventilation-free and norepinephrine-free time, and fluids input. Propensity-score matching was used to reduce the imbalance. RESULTS: Among 3,291 eligible patients, 1,289 patients who underwent echocardiography (Echo), and 1,289 who did not receive the Echo, had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. After matching, the Echo group had a significantly lower 28-day mortality (33.2% vs. 37.7%, P=0.019). More patients in the Echo group received pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) (4.2% vs. 0.2%, P<0.001) and inotropes (17.8% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). In the survival analysis, Echo utilization was associated with improved 28-day mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.95, P=0.005]. A reduced likelihood of 28-day mortality in patients with Echo vs. those without Echo was maintained either when excluding patients receiving multiple echocardiography scans (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) or when excluding patients undergoing PAC or pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of echocardiography was associated with improved 28-day outcomes in patients with septic shock. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic management is of paramount importance in patients with septic shock. Echocardiography has been increasingly used in assessing volume status and cardiac function. However, whether the utilization of echocardiography has an impact on prognosis is unknown. Thus, we intended to explore its effect on the outcomes of patients with septic shock. METHODS: The study was based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database. Septic shock patients were divided into two groups according to the usage of echocardiography during the onset of septic shock. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included the usage of inotropes, ventilation-free and norepinephrine-free time, and fluids input. Propensity-score matching was used to reduce the imbalance. RESULTS: Among 3,291 eligible patients, 1,289 patients who underwent echocardiography (Echo), and 1,289 who did not receive the Echo, had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. After matching, the Echo group had a significantly lower 28-day mortality (33.2% vs. 37.7%, P=0.019). More patients in the Echo group received pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) (4.2% vs. 0.2%, P<0.001) and inotropes (17.8% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). In the survival analysis, Echo utilization was associated with improved 28-day mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.95, P=0.005]. A reduced likelihood of 28-day mortality in patients with Echo vs. those without Echo was maintained either when excluding patients receiving multiple echocardiography scans (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) or when excluding patients undergoing PAC or pulse index continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of echocardiography was associated with improved 28-day outcomes in patients with septic shock. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Jay Soule; Alan Whippy; Derek C Angus; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David J Murphy; Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sameer S Kadri; Derek C Angus; Robert L Danner; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Greg S Martin; Edward Septimus; David K Warren; Anita Karcz; Christina Chan; John T Menchaca; Rui Wang; Susan Gruber; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexander Levitov; Heidi L Frankel; Michael Blaivas; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Erik Su; David Evans; Douglas T Summerfield; Anthony Slonim; Raoul Breitkreutz; Susanna Price; Matthew McLaughlin; Paul E Marik; Mahmoud Elbarbary Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: A F Connors; T Speroff; N V Dawson; C Thomas; F E Harrell; D Wagner; N Desbiens; L Goldman; A W Wu; R M Califf; W J Fulkerson; H Vidaillet; S Broste; P Bellamy; J Lynn; W A Knaus Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272