John E Arbo1, Jeremy K Lessing2, William J H Ford2, Sunday Clark2, Eli Finkelsztein2, Edward J Schenck3, Rahul Sharma2, Paul M Heerdt4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America; Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States of America. Electronic address: arboj1@nychhc.org. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Applied Hemodynamics, Yale School of Medicine, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the utility of heart rate variability (HRV) for assessment of severity of illness and poor outcome in Emergency Department (ED) patients with sepsis. HRV measures evaluated included low frequency (LF) signal, high frequency (HF) signal, and deviations in LF and HF signal from age-adjusted reference values. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. Seventy-two adult ED patients were assessed within 6 h of arrival. RESULTS: Severity of illness as defined by sepsis subtype correlated with decreased LF signal (sepsis: 70.68 ± 22.95, severe sepsis: 54.00 ± 28.41, septic shock: 45.54 ± 23.31, p = 0.02), increased HF signal (sepsis: 27.87 ± 19.42, severe sepsis: 44.63 ± 27.29, septic shock: 47.66 ± 20.98, p = 0.01), increasingly negative deviations in LF signal (sepsis: 0.41 ± 24.53, severe sepsis: -21.43 ± 30.09, septic shock -30.39 ± 26.09, p = 0.005) and increasingly positive deviations in HF signal (sepsis: -1.86 ± 21.09, severe sepsis: 20.07 ± 29.03, septic shock: 23.6 ± 24.17, p = 0.004). Composite poor outcome correlated with decreased LF signal (p = 0.008), increased HF signal (p = 0.03), large negative deviations in LF signal (p = 0.004) and large positive deviations in HF signal (p = 0.02). Deviations in LF and HF signal from age-adjusted reference values correlated with individual measures of poor outcome with greater consistency than LF or HF signal. DISCUSSION: Accounting for the influence of age on baseline HRV signal improves the predictive value of HRV measures in ED patients with sepsis.
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the utility of heart rate variability (HRV) for assessment of severity of illness and poor outcome in Emergency Department (ED) patients with sepsis. HRV measures evaluated included low frequency (LF) signal, high frequency (HF) signal, and deviations in LF and HF signal from age-adjusted reference values. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. Seventy-two adult ED patients were assessed within 6 h of arrival. RESULTS: Severity of illness as defined by sepsis subtype correlated with decreased LF signal (sepsis: 70.68 ± 22.95, severe sepsis: 54.00 ± 28.41, septic shock: 45.54 ± 23.31, p = 0.02), increased HF signal (sepsis: 27.87 ± 19.42, severe sepsis: 44.63 ± 27.29, septic shock: 47.66 ± 20.98, p = 0.01), increasingly negative deviations in LF signal (sepsis: 0.41 ± 24.53, severe sepsis: -21.43 ± 30.09, septic shock -30.39 ± 26.09, p = 0.005) and increasingly positive deviations in HF signal (sepsis: -1.86 ± 21.09, severe sepsis: 20.07 ± 29.03, septic shock: 23.6 ± 24.17, p = 0.004). Composite poor outcome correlated with decreased LF signal (p = 0.008), increased HF signal (p = 0.03), large negative deviations in LF signal (p = 0.004) and large positive deviations in HF signal (p = 0.02). Deviations in LF and HF signal from age-adjusted reference values correlated with individual measures of poor outcome with greater consistency than LF or HF signal. DISCUSSION: Accounting for the influence of age on baseline HRV signal improves the predictive value of HRV measures in ED patients with sepsis.
Authors: Anand Kumar; Daniel Roberts; Kenneth E Wood; Bruce Light; Joseph E Parrillo; Satendra Sharma; Robert Suppes; Daniel Feinstein; Sergio Zanotti; Leo Taiberg; David Gurka; Aseem Kumar; Mary Cheang Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Douglas Barnaby; Kevin Ferrick; Daniel T Kaplan; Sachin Shah; Polly Bijur; E John Gallagher Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Kevin A Prestia; Eugene A Sosunov; Evgeny P Anyukhovsky; Elena Dolmatova; Caitlin W Kelly; Peter R Brink; Richard B Robinson; Michael R Rosen; Heather S Duffy Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Saif Ahmad; Tim Ramsay; Lothar Huebsch; Sarah Flanagan; Sheryl McDiarmid; Izmail Batkin; Lauralyn McIntyre; Sudhir R Sundaresan; Donna E Maziak; Farid M Shamji; Paul Hebert; Dean Fergusson; Alan Tinmouth; Andrew J E Seely Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240