OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in predicting mortality in COVID-19-ICU-patients. METHODS: All consecutive COVID-19 adult patients admitted between March and June 2020 to the ICU of a referral, university hospital in Northern-Italy were enrolled. MR-proADM and routine laboratory test were measured within 48 hours from ICU admission, on day 3, 7 and 14. Survival curves difference with MR-proADM cut-off set to 1.8 nmol/L were tested using log-rank test. Predictive ability was compared using area under the curve and 95% confidence interval of different receiver-operating characteristics curves. RESULTS: 57 patients were enrolled. ICU and overall mortality were 54.4%. At admission, lymphocytopenia was present in 86% of patients; increased D-dimer and CRP levels were found in 84.2% and 87.7% of patients respectively, while PCT values > 0.5 μg/L were observed in 47.4% of patients. MR-proADM, CRP and LDH were significantly different between surviving and non-surviving patients and over time, while PCT, D-dimer and NT-pro-BNP did not show any difference between the groups and over time; lymphocytes were different between surviving and non-surviving patients only. MR-proADM was higher in dying patients (2.65±2.33vs1.18±0.47, p<0.001) and a higher mortality characterized patients with MR-proADM >1.8 nmol/L (p = 0.016). The logistic regression model adjusted for age, gender, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and PCT values confirmed an odds ratio = 10.3 [95%CI:1.9-53.6] (p = 0.006) for MR-proADM >1.8 nmol/L and = 22.2 [95%CI:1.6-316.9] (p = 0.022) for cardiovascular disease. Overall, MR-proADM had the best predictive ability (AUC = 0.85 [95%CI:0.78-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 ICU-patients, MR-proADM seems to have constantly higher values in non-survivor patients and predict mortality more precisely than other biomarkers. Repeated MR-proADM measurement may support a rapid and effective decision-making. Further studies are needed to better explain the mechanisms responsible of the increase in MR-proADM in COVID-19 patients.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in predicting mortality in COVID-19-ICU-patients. METHODS: All consecutive COVID-19 adult patients admitted between March and June 2020 to the ICU of a referral, university hospital in Northern-Italy were enrolled. MR-proADM and routine laboratory test were measured within 48 hours from ICU admission, on day 3, 7 and 14. Survival curves difference with MR-proADM cut-off set to 1.8 nmol/L were tested using log-rank test. Predictive ability was compared using area under the curve and 95% confidence interval of different receiver-operating characteristics curves. RESULTS: 57 patients were enrolled. ICU and overall mortality were 54.4%. At admission, lymphocytopenia was present in 86% of patients; increased D-dimer and CRP levels were found in 84.2% and 87.7% of patients respectively, while PCT values > 0.5 μg/L were observed in 47.4% of patients. MR-proADM, CRP and LDH were significantly different between surviving and non-surviving patients and over time, while PCT, D-dimer and NT-pro-BNP did not show any difference between the groups and over time; lymphocytes were different between surviving and non-surviving patients only. MR-proADM was higher in dying patients (2.65±2.33vs1.18±0.47, p<0.001) and a higher mortality characterized patients with MR-proADM >1.8 nmol/L (p = 0.016). The logistic regression model adjusted for age, gender, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and PCT values confirmed an odds ratio = 10.3 [95%CI:1.9-53.6] (p = 0.006) for MR-proADM >1.8 nmol/L and = 22.2 [95%CI:1.6-316.9] (p = 0.022) for cardiovascular disease. Overall, MR-proADM had the best predictive ability (AUC = 0.85 [95%CI:0.78-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 ICU-patients, MR-proADM seems to have constantly higher values in non-survivor patients and predict mortality more precisely than other biomarkers. Repeated MR-proADM measurement may support a rapid and effective decision-making. Further studies are needed to better explain the mechanisms responsible of the increase in MR-proADM in COVID-19patients.
Authors: Sheryl L Chow; Alan S Maisel; Inder Anand; Biykem Bozkurt; Rudolf A de Boer; G Michael Felker; Gregg C Fonarow; Barry Greenberg; James L Januzzi; Michael S Kiernan; Peter P Liu; Thomas J Wang; Clyde W Yancy; Michael R Zile Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alberto Zangrillo; Luigi Beretta; Anna Mara Scandroglio; Giacomo Monti; Evgeny Fominskiy; Sergio Colombo; Federica Morselli; Alessandro Belletti; Paolo Silvani; Martina Crivellari; Fabrizio Monaco; Maria Luisa Azzolini; Raffaella Reineke; Pasquale Nardelli; Marianna Sartorelli; Carmine D Votta; Annalisa Ruggeri; Fabio Ciceri; Francesco De Cobelli; Moreno Tresoldi; Lorenzo Dagna; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Ary Serpa Neto; Rinaldo Bellomo; Giovanni Landoni Journal: Crit Care Resusc Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Philipp Schuetz; Marcel Wolbers; Mirjam Christ-Crain; Robert Thomann; Claudine Falconnier; Isabelle Widmer; Stefanie Neidert; Thomas Fricker; Claudine Blum; Ursula Schild; Nils G Morgenthaler; Ronald Schoenenberger; Christoph Henzen; Thomas Bregenzer; Claus Hoess; Martin Krause; Heiner C Bucher; Werner Zimmerli; Beat Mueller Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jonathan E Millar; Jonathon P Fanning; Charles I McDonald; Daniel F McAuley; John F Fraser Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: David Andaluz-Ojeda; H Bryant Nguyen; Nicolas Meunier-Beillard; Ramón Cicuéndez; Jean-Pierre Quenot; Dolores Calvo; Auguste Dargent; Esther Zarca; Cristina Andrés; Leonor Nogales; Jose María Eiros; Eduardo Tamayo; Francisco Gandía; Jesús F Bermejo-Martín; Pierre Emmanuel Charles Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Waleed Alhazzani; Morten Hylander Møller; Yaseen M Arabi; Mark Loeb; Michelle Ng Gong; Eddy Fan; Simon Oczkowski; Mitchell M Levy; Lennie Derde; Amy Dzierba; Bin Du; Michael Aboodi; Hannah Wunsch; Maurizio Cecconi; Younsuck Koh; Daniel S Chertow; Kathryn Maitland; Fayez Alshamsi; Emilie Belley-Cote; Massimiliano Greco; Matthew Laundy; Jill S Morgan; Jozef Kesecioglu; Allison McGeer; Leonard Mermel; Manoj J Mammen; Paul E Alexander; Amy Arrington; John E Centofanti; Giuseppe Citerio; Bandar Baw; Ziad A Memish; Naomi Hammond; Frederick G Hayden; Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jos A H van Oers; Sjaak Pouwels; Dharmanand Ramnarain; Yvette Kluiters; Judith A P Bons; Dylan W de Lange; Harm-Jan de Grooth; Armand R J Girbes Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Emanuela Sozio; Carlo Tascini; Martina Fabris; Federica D'Aurizio; Chiara De Carlo; Elena Graziano; Flavio Bassi; Francesco Sbrana; Andrea Ripoli; Alberto Pagotto; Alessandro Giacinta; Valentina Gerussi; Daniela Visentini; Paola De Stefanis; Maria Merelli; Kordo Saeed; Francesco Curcio Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Martina Zaninotto; Monica Maria Mion; Lucio Marchioro; Andrea Padoan; Mario Plebani Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Blanca Valenzuela-Méndez; Francisco Valenzuela-Sánchez; Juan Francisco Rodríguez-Gutiérrez; Rafael Bohollo-de-Austria; Ángel Estella; Pilar Martínez-García; María Ángela González-García; Jordi Rello Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-10