Factors associated with abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (decreased or increased) in patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SIC) is known to show cardiac dysfunction in patients with sepsis. Both a decrease or an increase in ejection fraction (EF), an indicator of cardiac function, can occur. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with abnormal left ventricular (LV) function measured by EF in patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU).
METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed from November 2016 to December 2018. Three-hundred and sixty-six patients (mean age, 73 ± 13 years; 191 [52%] men) admitted to the ICU with sepsis were included. Patients were classified into three categories according to LV EF (group 1 -[EF<50%, n = 36], group 2 -[50≤EF<70%, n = 252], and group 3 -[EF≥70%, n = 78]). Echocardiographic assessment was performed within 48 hours of diagnosis of sepsis. We analyzed clinical factors including mortality, echocardiographic findings, and laboratory parameters.
RESULTS: Decreased LV EF occurred in 36 (10%) patients and hyper-dynamic EF developed in 78 (21%) patients. Of 366 patients, 103 (28%) patients died. Baseline characteristics were similar in the three groups, except female sex an indicator of abnormal EF. Mortality rates were also similar in the three groups; however, mortality rates were significantly higher in patients with abnormal EF (decreased or increased vs. normal). Echocardiographic parameters were significantly different in the three groups, in terms of LV systolic parameters and chamber size. Small left atrium (LA) and small LV were significantly associated with abnormal EF (especially in patients with increased EF). High brain natriuretic peptide was associated with decreased EF. Among these factors, female sex and small LA were significantly associated with abnormal EF in the multiple regression analysis.
CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that female sex and small cardiac size are associated with abnormal EF, and therefore, death. Therefore, female patients and patients with small LA should be monitored closely when they present with sepsis.

Introduction

Sepsis is a lethal syndrome induced by infection which is associated with a high mortality rate, and in fact, it is the main cause of death in non-cardiac intensive care units (ICU) [1]. The pathophysiology of sepsis includes inflammation, immune dysfunction, and coagulation disorders. The septic shock in the early onset of sepsis is a main cause of death for septic patients [2]. Septic shock is known to be caused mainly by immunosuppression that occurs in the late stage; however, cytokine storm and cardiac dysfunction are also main causes of septic shock in the early onset of sepsis [3]. The heart plays a key role in the pathophysiology of septic shock, and therefore, it is important to evaluate myocardial function and continue hemodynamic monitoring in patients with sepsis. Conventionally, the definition of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SIC) is a global, reversible, systolic and diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) or right ventricle (RV), which is induced by myocardial depressants released from pathogens and the host, and global ischemia after peripheral vasodilation, and arterial and capillary shunting in septic distributive shock [3]. A retrospective cohort study reported that SIC developed in 13.8% of patients with sepsis and septic shock [4], so SIC could be used as an outcome predictor in septic patients [5]. The mainly therapy for SIC focuses on achieving hemodynamic stabilization using fluid therapy [6], inotropic drugs [7], or immunomodulation [8-10]. Inotropic therapy is suggested for patients with low cardiac output after proper fluid therapy. Norepinephrine is the first choice recommended by the guideline, while the use of dobutamine and dopamine is recommended only for selected patients due to the associated adverse events [7]. Therefore, patients with SIC need a different approach to patients with conventional cardiogenic shock or heart failure.

Contrary to SIC, hyperdynamic LV ejection fraction (EF), which is defined as a LVEF > 70%, is frequently observed on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in the ICU [11]. Patients with sepsis commonly have low systemic vascular resistance and increased circulating catecholamines, and this causes increased contractility [12]. In terms of prognosis, a recent meta-analysis on sepsis-induced LV dysfunction showed there is no significant correlation between reduced EF and mortality [13]. Rather, hyperdynamic LV is a possible predictor of mortality in patients with sepsis combined with a high APACHE II score [14].

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of abnormal EF (reduced or increased) in patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis, and to investigate the differences in in-hospital mortality rates and the related clinical factors.

Methods

Study design and participants

This study was a retrospective study. In this study, 366 patients (191 [52%] male, average age: 73 ± 13 years) who attended the Kangnam Sacred heart Hospital, Hallym University from the November 2016 to December 2018. Among the patients hospitalized with sepsis, we included patients were admitted with in the ICU and performed echocardiography, and refer to division of cardiology for evaluation of cardiac function. Patients with sepsis were diagnosed according to the definition of Sepsis-3 [15]. Patients with documented acute coronary syndrome (ACS), preexisting ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICMP), hypertrophic CMP (HCMP), restrictive CMP (RCMP), or other CMP with preexisting LV dysfunction, suspected stress induced CMP, previous cardiac surgery, significant valvular dysfunction, pulmonary thromboembolism, infective endocarditis, or chronic kidney diseases with dialysis were excluded from this study (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flowchart showing selection of patients in this study.

ICU: intensive care unit, ACS: acute coronary syndrome, CMP: cardiomyopathy, PTE: pulmonary thromboembolism, IE: infective endocarditis (some patients were overlapped).

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was not obtained from all individual participants included in the study, because this study was a retrospective study. There was no information the authors had access to potentially identifying patient information. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Hospital (IRB no. 2019-02-005).

Classification of the participants

I—Patients were classified into the three categories (decreased, normal, or hyper-dynamic EF) according to the LV EF (Fig 2).

Fig 2

M-mode echocardiographic findings of patients with sepsis.

A: a patient with reduced EF (EF: 25%), B: a patient with normal EF (EF: 66%), C: a patient with increased EF (EF: 79%). EF: ejection fraction (measured by biplane method).

Group 1 –decreased LV EF (EF < 50%) = 36 (10%),

Group 2 –normal LV EF (50≤ EF <70%) = 252 (79%),

Group 3 –hyper-dynamic LV EF (EF ≥70%) = 78 (21%)

II—We classified patients with EF less than 50% or 70% or more as abnormal EF vs. normal EF (EF 50≤ EF <70%).

Abnormal EF (AEF, group 1 and 3) = 114 (21%),

Normal EF (NEF, group 2) = 252 (79%)

Then we compared mortality rate (in-hospital mortality) and other clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters between groups. Echocardiographic assessment was done within 48 hours of diagnosis of sepsis. Immediately after the visit, the blood test was performed as soon as possible and the follow-up test was carried out if necessary. The first CRP was CRPi (initial CRP), the highest was CRPp (peak CRP), and the last CRP before discharge or death was CRPf (final CRP). If possible, cardiac troponin was also tested up to three times or more if necessary. TnI1 (cardiac troponin 1) was the first test, TnI 2 was the second test, and TnI3 was the third or significant last one.

Echocardiography

TTE was performed using standard techniques with a 2.5-MHz transducer. TTE was performed by well-trained sonographer (over 6 months) and it was confirmed by a cardiologist almost in real time. The standard 2-D and Doppler echocardiography was performed using a commercially available echocardiographic machine (Vivid 7R GE Medical System, Horten, Norway) with the same setup interfaced with a 2.5-MHz phased-array probe. All measurements were performed according to the guideline [16]. With the study participant in the partial left decubitus position and breathing normally, the observer obtained images from the parasternal long and short axes and from the apical four chamber and two-chamber and long-axis views. Depth setting was optimized to display the LV on the screen as large as possible and the same field depth was kept for both four and two-chamber apical views. Sector width was reduced to increase spatial and temporal resolution. LV end-diastolic dimensions (LV EDD), end-diastolic interventricular septal thickness, and end-diastolic LV posterior wall thickness were measured at end-diastole according to the standards established by the American Society of Echocardiography. LV EF was determined by the biplane Simpson’s method. Maximal left atrial (LA) volume was calculated using the Simpson method and indexed to the body surface area. LV mass was calculated using the Devereux formula = 1.04[(LVEDD + IVSTd + PWTd)3 − (LVEDD)3] − 13.6. Thereafter, the LV mass index (LVMI) was calculated and indexed to body surface area. DWS was calculated as [(PWTs)—(PWTd)/(PWTs)] using M-mode echocardiography.

Mitral flow velocities were recorded in the apical four-chamber view. Mitral inflow measurements included the peak early (E) and peak late (A) flow velocities and the E/A ratio. The tissue Doppler of the mitral annulus movement was also obtained from the apical four-chamber view. A 1.5-mm sample volume was placed sequentially at the septal annular sites. The analysis was performed for early diastolic (E’), late diastolic (A’) and systolic (S’) peak tissue velocities. As a noninvasive parameter for LV stiffness, the LV filling index (E/E’) was calculated by the ratio of transmitral flow velocity to annular velocity. Adequate mitral and tissue Doppler image (TDI) signals were recorded in all patients.

Longitudinal global strain (GS) of LV was obtained from apical 4, 3, 2–chamber views by speckle-tracking 2D-strain imaging [17].

Myocardial performance index (MPI, or tei index) was calculated as the sum of isovolumic contraction time and isovolumic relaxation time divided by the ejection time [18].

Statistical analysis

All continuous data are expressed as mean ± SD, and all categorical data are presented as percentage or absolute numbers. Continuous variables were analyzed using one way ANOVA in three independent groups, and Student’s t-test in two independent groups and dichotomous variables were analyzed using the chi square test. Non-normally distributed variables were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney U test. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate significant variables associated with abnormal EF and hyper-dynamic EF. P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were performed using SPSS, version 18.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). In addition, we performed Bonferroni correction for the clinically and statistically significant parameters (female gender, length of hospitalization, and left atrial volume index) between the three groups.

Results

Clinical parameters of the study population (Table 1)

There were no significant differences in age, blood pressure, underlying diseases, general condition, or site of infection among the three groups. The percentage of females was higher among patients in groups 1 and 3 compared to group 2. There was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates among the three groups. The length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in patients with hyperdynamic EF.

Laboratory findings and other parameters (Table 2)

There were no significant intergroup differences for chemistry, cardiac biomarkers, and inflammatory markers, and so on. However, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and initial troponin were the highest in patients with reduced EF. Non-normally distributed variables, including BNP and troponin, were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results showed that only BNP was significantly higher in patients with reduced EF.

Echocardiographic parameters of the study population (Table 3)

Cardiac chamber size was the smallest in patients with hyperdynamic LV, and LV size was the largest in patients with reduced EF. However, LAVI was less in patients with reduced EF than in patients with normal EF. GS and S’ velocity, which were related to the LV systolic function, were similar to EF in the three groups. There was no significant difference in terms of diastolic function between the three groups. MPI, an indicator of LV systolic and diastolic function, was also lowest in patients with hyperdynamic EF and highest in patients with reduced EF.

Comparison of results of patients with normal vs. abnormal EF (NEF vs. AEF)

Table 4 shows clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters according to the presence of hypo (EF < 50%)—or hyperdynamic EF (EF ≥70%). The proportion of females was higher in patients with AEF, and the mortality rate was also higher (Fig 3). Heart rate was slightly but significantly faster in patients with AEF. Days of hospitalization and ICU were significantly shorter in patients with AEF. No significant differences were seen in laboratory findings or echocardiographic parameters. However, the left atrial volume index (LAVI) was significantly smaller in patients with AEF.

Table 4

Comparison of results of patients with normal vs. abnormal EF.

	AEF (n = 114)	NEF (n = 252)	p
Age (years)	73.9 ± 11.6	72.3 ± 13.5	0.278
Female gender	66 (58%)	109 (43%)	0.013
Mortality	40 (35%)	63 (25%)	0.050
SBP (mmHg)	122 ± 22	123 ± 21	0.751
DBP	68 ± 15	69 ± 14	0.697
Heart rate (bpm)	97 ± 25	91 ± 19	0.030
Body mass index (kg/m2)	22.0 ± 4.5	22.7 ± 4.3	0.158
Site of infection			0.353
Pneumonia	55 (48%)	95 (38%)	*0.066
Hypertension	54 (47%)	105 (42%)	0.362
Diabetes	34 (30%)	71 (28%)	0.803
Cerebrovascular ds	42 (37%)	96 (38%)	0.907
Cardiovascular ds	12 (11%)	30 (12%)	0.860
ICU days	8.5 ± 9.6	12.9 ± 19.6	0.004
Hospital days	19.7 ± 17.3	25.5 ± 22.2	0.007
SAPS3	34.9 ± 6.6	35.3 ± 7.6	0.672
Initial CVP	5.3 ± 3.1	6.0 ± 3.6	0.149
TnI1	0.49 ± 1.72	0.21 ± 0.81	0.134
TnI2	2.46 ± 7.78	1.33 ± 4.08	0.217
TnI3	0.82 ± 1.54	0.92 ± 5.81	0.915
CK-MB	10.36 ± 23.93	6.9 ± 15.6	0.161
BNP	547.4 ± 885.6	374 ± 981	0.115
cr	1.4 ± 1.3	1.5 ± 1.2	0.699
CRPpeak	194.6 ± 96.0	221.5 ± 144.7	0.072
LVEDD	44.9 ± 6.4	45.8 ± 6.3	0.202
LVESD	29.2 ± 8.1	30.5 ± 4.5	0.117
LAVI	19.2 ± 11.7	23.0 ± 13.7	0.015
LMVI	92.9 ± 24.9	96.7 ± 27.5	0.214
E velocity	70.5 ± 23.4	70.4 ± 22.6	0.974
A velocity	85.0 ± 25.6	83.3 ± 23.3	0.576
DT	182.0 ± 46.5	187.6 ± 46.2	0.329
E/E’	12.1 ± 5.5	12.3 ± 5.2	0.759
S’	7.8 ± 2.5	7.9 ± 2.4	0.641
GS	-16.0 ± 4.9	-17.3 ± 2.8	0.207
MPI	0.43 ± 0.20	0.43 ± 0.20	0.910
RVSP	35.0 ± 10.4	33.4 ± 11.2	0.199

Fig 3

Comparison of mortality rate according to the EF.

AEF: abnormal ejection fraction, NEF: normal ejection fraction.

Multivariate analyses (Table 5)

We performed multivariate analysis in terms of three aspects: 1) presence of hyperdynamic EF, 2) presence of reduced EF, 3) presence of abnormal (both hypo- and hyperdynamic) EF, and 4) in-hospital mortality.

Female sex (OR: 3.316, CI: 1.251–8.789, p = 0.016) and small LV dimension (OR: 0.414, CI: 0.312–0.550, p<0.001) were associated with hyperdynamic LV, and female sex (OR: 1.734, CI: 1.059–2.841, p = 0.029) and small LA size (OR: 0.974, CI: 0.952–0.995, p = 0.018) were associated with the presence of abnormal EF. Tachycardia was associated with the presence of abnormal EF with marginal clinical significance (OR: 1.011, CI: 0.950–1.002, p = 0.064). However, abnormal EF did not show a significant correlation with mortality in multivariate analysis. Tachycardia, pneumonia, presence of malignancy, high SAPS3 score, persistently elevated CRP, and cardiac troponin were associated with mortality in this study. The presence of abnormal EF and its associated factors such as female sex, small LV, or small LA were not associated with mortality in this study; however, tachycardia was associated with mortality.

Discussion

Reduced LVEF occurred in 36 of 366 (10%) patients and hyperdynamic LVEF occurred in 78 of 366 (21%) patients. Therefore, abnormal (reduced or hyperdynamic) EF occurred in 114 of 336 (31%) patients. Among them, 103 of 366 patients died, resulting in an in-hospital mortality rate of 28%. The patients with abnormal EF showed a higher in-hospital mortality rate than those with normal EF. Abnormal EF was more prevalent in female patients, and slightly increased heart rate, small LA size, and hospital admission days were shorter in patients with abnormal EF. Among them, female sex and small LA size were found to have a significant correlation with the occurrence of abnormal EF in our study.

It has been shown that the early hyperdynamic phase of septic shock is associated with high cardiac output and the late hypodynamic phase is characterized by reduced cardiac output [19-23]. In this study, EF was measured in patients who underwent echocardiography within 48 hours of hospitalization for sepsis, and patients were classified into three groups according to the result. Thirty-six (10%) patients showed reduced EF (< 50%) and 78 (21%) patients showed increased EF (≥ 70%). Therefore, according to the results of this study, cardiac function may decrease or increase from the time of admission. Of course, one disadvantage of this study was that the patients were not admitted to hospital at the same stage of sepsis, so we could not determine whether they visited our hospital in the early stages of the illness or whether they had deteriorated during treatment at the other hospital. However, whether the patient was staying in a nursing home or in their home did not have a significant effect on EF reduction or exertion. Most previous studies have investigated patients with sepsis and reduced cardiac function (sepsis-related CMP) or compared patients with hyperdynamic LV (increased EF) and normal EF. The findings of this study are meaningful in that the mortality rate was higher in patients with abnormal EF (reduced or increased) as measured by echocardiographic confirmation of cardiac function within 48 hours of admission. In addition, the exclusion of patients with underlying cardiac disease through questionnaires or chart reviews is an important strength in assessing cardiac dysfunction due to sepsis.

Cardiac specific biomarkers such as Troponin I have been studied in septic patients and elevated Troponin I has been reported as associated with higher risk of mortality [24, 25]. We also investigated the relationship between abnormal EF and cardiac troponin, but there was no significant difference between EF and cardiac troponin elevation. One-way ANOVA showed that cardiac troponin increased with decreasing EF and at its lowest when EF increased. However, there was no significant difference in cardiac troponin among the three groups according to the Kruskal-Wallis test. It has been well known that acute bacterial infections are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction [26], and further cardiac or coronary evaluation for statins and antiplatelet therapy may be needed in survived patients with persistently elevated cardiac troponin. BNP levels were similar (less than 400 pg/mL) in patients with normal EF and elevated EF, but the BNP level was elevated to nearly 1,000 pg/mL in patients with reduced EF. The BNP level helps to rule out or diagnose heart failure (HF) in patients with dyspnea. A BNP level less than 100 pg/mL means less chance of HF, and a BNP level greater than 400 pg/mL increases the likelihood of HF [27, 28]. If the BNP level is between 100 and 400 pg/mL, other causes besides HF should be considered under clinical judgment, and BNP may be elevated in the case of sepsis [27-29]. Natriuretic peptides are protein molecules that are secreted by the ventricular musculature in response to volume or pressure overload [30]; therefore, this is considered to be a secondary response to lowered cardiac function in patients with SIC. In addition, unlike cardiac troponin, BNP levels did not correlate with mortality in our study.

The etiology of sepsis may affect the type of cardiac dysfunction. To explain it further, sepsis due to underlying lung pathology can result in elevation of RV afterload. High RV afterload leads to less pulmonary blood flow and reduces the possibility of left ventricular (LV) diastolic failure if LV function is normal prior to sepsis [19, 31–34]. In this study, neither the etiology of sepsis (infection site), nor the presence of underlying lung disease, affected the occurrence of AEF. However, patients with pneumonia had higher right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) measured on echocardiography than those with other causes of sepsis (35.9 ± 12.4 vs. 33.0 ± 9.0, p = 0.012). In terms of mortality, patients with sepsis due to pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than those with other causes (OR: 3.184, 95% CI: 1.817–1.029, p<0.001).

Central venous pressure (CVP) has been used to assess hemodynamic status, particularly in the ICU [35]. A normal CVP is between 8 to 12 mmHg, this value can be altered by volume status or venous compliance [36, 37]. EF can also be affected by preload [38], so we compared CVP between the three groups. However, there was no significant difference in terms of EF. There is a question as to whether the CVP itself accurately reflects the preload [35, 36], and there is no assurance that it has been accurately measured in all patients in this study. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that CVP is not a relevant factor for determining EF in patients with sepsis, and it should be clarified by further studies.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Firstly, this was a single center study with a relatively small study population. Secondly, in this study, echocardiography was performed 48 hours after admission, so patients with late onset AEF were excluded. Thirdly, serial echocardiographic follow-up was not performed, except in patients with reduced EF. Therefore, we could not analyze the effects of changes in EF and clinical implications in patients with sepsis over time. Among the patients who showed reduced EF, echocardiography was followed up for 7 to 10 days if possible, and most of the patients recovered to normal cardiac function. However, restoration of cardiac function did not affect the mortality rate. Finally, a relatively small study population was one of the major limitations. Therefore, serial echocardiography follow-up should be performed in patients who underwent echocardiography within 48 hours of admission. Further studies should focus on the effects of cardiac function over time and clinical outcomes.

In conclusion, our findings highlight that female sex and small cardiac size are associated with abnormal EF, and therefore, death. Female patients and patients with small LA should be monitored closely when they present with sepsis. Our findings can assist clinicians to provide better patient care.

(DOT)

Click here for additional data file.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-32205

Factors Associated with Abnormal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (Decreased or Increased) in Patients with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Kang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

c. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Hypothesis- Study was designed to look for risk factors associated with septic cardiomyopathy

In results - Grouping of hyperdynamic and abnormal EF group is not clear, as abnormal EF group includes both hypo and hyperdynamic EF

So interpretation of results is difficult

Need to analyse low EF and hyperdynamic EF separately

Classification of comorbidities was done based on what ?

Supplementary material is not in english, so not able to evaluate

Needs plagiarism check

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors and the editor for allowing me to review this manuscript. In “Factors Associated with Abnormal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (Decreased or Increased) in Patients with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit,” Shin and colleagues assessed septic patients and categorized them by ejection fraction. They found that hearts with abnormal ejection fractions were associated with increased mortality. Additionally, they found female sex and decreased chamber size was associated with increased ejection fraction. Although not a criteria for PLOS One publication, this study has substantial interest to clinicians and researchers. I will address the PLOS one criteria before moving on to major and minor comments:

To be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

1. The study presents the results of original research.

Yes. While similar studies exist, this particular manuscript identifies a different patient population, with different results than those published previously.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

Yes. A brief pubmed and google search reveals no suggestion of duplicate publication.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

No. There are multiple methodological errors. However, these can be remedies.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

Questionable. I suspect the data will continue to support conclusions after correcting the methods.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Yes. The article is intelligible and uses standard English

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

Yes. The study meets face validity for ethical research, and authors attest it is in accordance with ethical standards, and approved by an IRB.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

This is unclear. The authors attest that data are publicly available, but the description of where the Data may be found is listed as “no”

Major Comments:

1. Patient selection is unclear in the methods. My read suggests that all patients who were in the ICU with sepsis received an echocardiogram and a cardiology consultation. This seems unusual, as even hospitals with high echocardiography utilization don’t perform echocardiography on 100% of septic patients. I would expect a number of patients admitted with sepsis, and a subset of those patients received a cardiac consultation and echocardiogram. Please clarify.

2. The authors do not specify how sepsis was determined. Sepsis 3 criteria were disseminated in early 2016. Were these patients categorized according to Sepsis 2, Sepsis 3, a combination? Were they categorized by some screening criteria, or was assignment of sepsis based on a clinical gestalt, medical documentation, or billing? Please clarify.

1. It is unclear how some of the cardiac patients were excluded. Stress-induced cardiomyopathy can overlap with septic cardiomyopathy. There is disagreement whether septic cardiomyopathy and stress induced cardiomyopathy represent distinct phenotypes. Additionally, the exclusion of antecedent LV dysfunction or restrictive cardiomyopathy likely results in a selection bias, as patients who have had prior echocardiograms are different than those who have not. There is no such thing as ischemic cardiomyopathy. The WHO definition for cardiomyopathy excludes ischemia. The preferred term is ischemic heart disease. Ordinarily, this would just be a pedantic comment, but the inclusion of this term makes me wonder about whether hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is being being conflated with hypertrophic heart—terms clinicians often throw about casually. To be clear, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the autosomal dominant disease of excess muscle growth, despite that the term is often used erroneously to describe hypertrophy of hypertension or valvular disease. Regardless, please include a strobe flow diagram that details number of patients included and excluded.

3. The study is retrospective, but the description of the echoes sounds more like a detailed prospectively performed protocol. If the echoes were clinically obtained echoes, please simply state that the echoes were performed clinically in adherence with guidelines by appropriately certified people. Additionally, please clarify that the measurements were clinically obtained by the sonographer or physician, unless the investigators performed additional measurements as part of the research investigation.

4. As data are non-normally distributed, it is customary to report median and interquartile ranges instead of mean and standard deviation for those data.

5. The authors perform multiple comparisons without an a priori hypothesis. I see scores of comparisons. Please correct for multiple hypothesis testing using Bonferroni or some other similar correction.

6. 48 hours after sepsis is a long time. The authors do not mention accounting for censoring by death within the first 48 hours. Additionally, censoring by death prevents most echocardiographic follow-up. The STROBE diagram might help demonstrate how many patients might have died before having an opportunity to receive echocardiogram.

7. I would like to see references and comparison to other similar studies in the field. Prior investigations have reported lower incidence of hyperdynamic hypovolemia, and higher incidence of hypocontractility. I suspect this finding is due both to selection criteria, which excluded all patients with antecedent EF<50%, and practice variation where the study population may perhaps receive less volume expansion than those other hospitals. Antecedent fluid receipt may be a more direct predictor of hyperdynamic hypovolemia. Additionally, vasopressors and ventilator receipt could be obvious confounders.

8. Ventricular function can be affected by so many parameters. Other studies in this field had accounted for vasopressor dose receipt of mechanical ventilation at time of echo, and antecedent fluid receipt. This study should adjust for these confounders.

Minor Comments:

1. Page 8. “...were measured at end-diastole according to the standards established by the American Society of Echocardiography2.” Please omit the 2. Additionally, the guideline cited by Porter et al. is out of date and has been replaced by a more recent publication.

2. Table 1-3. Group 3 is misspelled.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Amarja Ashok Havaldar

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Jan 2020

I added a file titled as "response to reviewer's"

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

11 Feb 2020

Factors Associated with Abnormal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (Decreased or Increased) in Patients with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit

PONE-D-19-32205R1

Dear Dr. Kang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

26 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-32205R1

Factors Associated with Abnormal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (Decreased or Increased) in Patients with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit

Dear Dr. Kang:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Clinical parameters of the study population.

	Group 1 (n = 36)	Group2 (n = 252)	Group3 (n = 78)	p
Age (years)	75.4 ± 12.5	72.3 ± 13.5	72.8 ± 13.0	0.388
Female gender*	21 (58%)	109 (43%)	45 (58%)	0.034
SBP (mmHg)	124 ± 24	123 ± 21	121 ± 21	0.821
DBP	70 ± 15	69 ± 14	67 ± 14	0.538
Heart rate (bpm)	98 ± 25	91 ± 20	93 ± 22	0.055
Mortality	13 (36%)	63 (25%)	27 (35%)	0.137
Etiology of infection				0.364
Pneumonia	19 (53%)	95 (38%)	36 (46%)
GI	2 (6%)	38 (15%)	10 (13%)
UTI or APN	8 (22%)	68 (27%)	21 (27%)
Musculoskeletal	1 (4%)	19 (8%)	3 (4%)
Abscess	5 (13%)	20 (8%)	3 (4%)
Et al.	1 (3%)	12 (5%)	5 (6%)
Bed-ridden state	7 (19%)	73 (29%)	22 (28%)	0.490
Nursing facility	13 (36%)	69 (28%)	20 (26%)	0.491
Hypertension	14 (39%)	105 (42%)	40 (51%)	0.276
Diabetes mellitus	11 (31%)	71 (28%)	23 (30%)	0.943
Atrial fibrillation	7 (19%)	36 (14%)	10 (13%)	0.638
Cerebrovascular ds	14 (39%)	96 (38%)	28 (36%)	0.929
Cardiovascular ds	7 (19%)	30 (12%)	5 (6%)	0.118
Pulmonary ds	2 (6%)	31 (12%)	13 (17%)	0.246
Liver ds	1 (3%)	25 (10%)	7 (9%)	0.372
Musculoskeletal ds	9 (25%)	52 (21%)	13 (17%)	0.561
Recent surgery	3 (8%)	16 (6%)	2 (3%)	0.353
Malignancy	5 (14%)	46 (18%)	19 (24%)	0.342
SAPS3	36.3 ± 5.4	35.3 ± 7.6	34.3 ± 7.3	0.369
Length of ICU	8.8 ± 11.1	12.9 ± 19.6	8.3 ± 8.9	0.071
Length of hospitalization*	23.5 ± 22.7	25.5 ± 22.2	17.9 ± 14.0	0.019
Initial CVP	5.8 ± 2.9	6.0 ± 3.6	5.1 ± 3.2	0.276

Data are mean ± standard deviation (SD) or n (%). SBP: systolic blood pressure, DBP: diastolic BP, GI: gastrointestinal, UTI: urinary track infection, APN: acute pyelonephritis, ds: diseases, ICU: intensive care unit, CVP: central venous pressure.

*Bonferroni correction was done; p value for female gender- 1 vs. 2: 0.107, 1 vs. 3: 1.000, 2 vs. 3: 0.028, p value for length of hospitalization—1 vs. 2: 0.615, 1 vs. 3: 0.106, 2 vs. 3: 0.005.

Table 2

Laboratory parameters.

	Group 1 (n = 36)	Group2 (n = 252)	Group3 (n = 78)	p
Serum cr (mg/dL)	1.4 ± 1.4	1.5 ± 1.2	1.5 ± 1.2	0.928
BNP	944 ± 1315	374 ± 981	344 ± 1543	0.001
CK-MB	14.8 ± 26.7	6.9 ± 15.6	8.3 ± 22.4	0.062
TnI1	1.17 ± 2.87	0.21 ± 0.81	0.18 ± 0.62	<0.001
TnI2	4.59 ± 11.46	1.33 ± 4.08	0.88 ± 2.08	0.019
TnI3	1.00 ± 1.80	0.92 ± 5.81	0.66 ± 1.28	0.968
CRPi	128 ± 97	152 ± 108	148 ± 114	0.472
CRPp	192.2 ± 82.7	221.5 ± 144.7	224.0 ± 111.5	0.198
CRPf	61 ± 75	76 ± 270	73 ± 232	0.942
D-dimer	7.3 ± 8.5	7.2 ± 15.4	5.4 ± 4.8	0.798
Procalcitonin	18.3 ± 27.3	28.3 ± 114.6	13.5 ± 40.2	0.505
BNP*	179 (2.40–13210.00)			0.001
CK-MB*	2.21 (0.02–154.21)			0.094
TnI1*	0.320 (0.006–13.185)			0.417
TnI2*	0.146 (0.006–47.633)			0.368
TnI3*	0.077 (0.006–49.996)			0.294

Data are expressed as mean ± SD. cr: creatinine, BNP: B-type natriuretic peptide, CK-MB: creatine kinase-muscle/brain, TnI: cardiac-specific troponin I (1,2,3 for 1st, 2nd, 3rd), CRP: C-reactive protin (i-initial, p-peak, f-final * Analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and data are expressed as median (min~max)

Table 3

Echocardiographic parameters of the study population.

	Group 1 (n = 36)	Group2 (n = 252)	Group3 (n = 78)	p
LAVI (ml/m2) *	22.9 ± 13.8	23.0 ± 13.7	17.3 ± 10.0	0.006
LVMI (g/m2)	103.8 ± 28.7	96.7 ± 27.5	87.8 ± 21.2	0.005
LVEDD (mm)	48.8 ± 6.4	45.8 ± 6.3	43.1 ± 6.7	<0.001
ESD	38.8 ± 6.7	30.5 ± 4.5	24.8 ± 3.7	<0.001
LV EF (%)	40.6 ± 6.4	62.0 ± 4.5	73.1 ± 2.8	<0.001
GS (%)	-12.6 ± 4.4	-17.3 ± 2.8	-17.1 ± 4.6	0.004
MPI	0.52 ± 0.22	0.43 ± 0.20	0.40 ± 0.200	0.022
E (cm/s)	69.7 ± 28.7	70.4 ± 22.6	70.8 ± 21.2	0.978
A (cm/s)	77.9 ± 28.1	83.3 ± 23.3	87.6 ± 24.4	0.213
E/A ratio	0.98 ± 0.65	0.86 ± 0.35	0.85 ± 0.33	0.355
DT (ms)	167.1 ± 44.2	187.6 ± 46.2	185.9 ± 46.3	0.088
E/E’	13.5 ± 4.5	12.3 ± 5.2	11.6 ± 5.8	0.281
S’ (cm/s)	5.9 ± 1.6	7.9 ± 2.4	8.6 ± 2.5	<0.001
RVSP	35.6 ± 10.4	33.4 ± 11.2	34.8 ± 10.5	0.409
Diastolic gr.				0.072
normal	2 (9%)	19 (10%)	6 (10%)
Grade 1	17 (74%)	153 (81%)	51 (82%)
Grade 2	3 (13%)	18 (10%)	5 (8%)
Grade 3	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

Data are represented as mean ± SD or n (%). LAVI: left atrial volume index, LVMI: left ventricular mass index; LV EDD and ESD: LV end-diastolic and systolic dimension, EF: ejection fraction, GS: global strain, MPI: myocardial performance index, DT: deceleration time, RVSP; right ventricular systolic pressure, gr: grade.

*Bonferroni correction was done; p value for LAVI—1 vs. 2: 0.973, 1 vs. 3: 0.021, 2 vs. 3: 0.002.

Table 5

Multivariate analysis of the associated factors presence of hyperdynamic LV, abnormal LV EF, and mortality.

	Odds ratio	95% CI	p
Presence of hyperdynamic LV
Female gender	3.316	1.251–8.789	0.016
Hospital days	0.998	0.965–1.031	0.883
LAVI	0.974	0.928–1.023	0.295
LVMI	0.998	0.973–1.023	0.855
LVEDD	0.414	0.312–0.550	<0.001
LVESD’	0.221	0.143–0.342	<0.001
S’	1.140	0.946–1.373	0.168
Presence of reduced LV EF
Female gender	1.252	0.654–2.397	0.498
Mortality	1.835	0.895–2.397	0.098
ICU stays	0.976	0.945–1.009	0.150
Hospital days	1.010	0.991–2.397	1.031
LAVI	1.014	0.992–1.037	0.211
Presence of abnormal LV EF
Female gender	1.734	1.059–2.841	0.029
Mortality	1.460	0.829–2.570	0.190
HR	1.011	0.999–1.022	0.064
ICU stays	0.978	0.950–1.006	0.117
Hospital days	1.000	0.983–1.016	0.963
LAVI	0.974	0.952–0.995	0.018
Mortality
HR	1.017	1.005–1.029	0.004
Pneumonia	3.184	1.817–5.580	<0.001
Malignancy	2.949	1.534–5.669	0.001
SAPS3	1.060	1.015–1.106	0.008
Final CRP	1.019	1.010–1.028	<0.001
Final TnI	1.657	1.045–2.630	0.032