Mean platelet volume and mean platelet volume to platelet count ratio as predictors of severity and mortality in sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a public health problem due to its high prevalence and mortality. Mean platelet volume (MPV), a biomarker reported in routine blood counts, has been investigated and shows promise for determining fatal outcomes in septic patients.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether the mean platelet volume (MPV) and mean platelet volume-to-platelet count (MPV/P) ratio are predictors of clinical severity and mortality in patients with sepsis.
METHODS: A prospective population cohort of 163 patients aged 18-97 years was recruited at the Intensive Care Unit of Pablo Arturo Hospital, Quito, Ecuador from 2017-2019 and followed up for 28 days. Patients were diagnosed with sepsis based on SEPSIS-3 septic shock criteria; in which the MPV and the MPV/P ratio were measured on days 1, 2, and 3. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and presence of septic shock assessed clinical severity. Mortality on day 28 was considered the fatal outcome.
RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 61,15 years (SD 20,94) and female sex was predominant. MPV cutoff points at days 1, 2 and 3 were >9,45fL, >8,95fL and >8, 85fL; and (MPV/P) ratio >8, 18, >4, 12 y >3, 95, respectively. MPV at days 2 (9,85fL) and 3 (8,55fL) and (MPV/P) ratio at days 1 (4,42), 2 (4,21), and 3 (8,55), were predictors of clinical severity assessed by septic shock, which reached significance in the ROC curves. MPV and (MPV/P) ratio were also predictors of clinical severity determined by SOFA at days 1, 2, and 3, where higher values were observed in non-survivors reaching significance in all categories. MPV and MPV/P ratio at days 1, 2 and 3 were independent predictor factors of mortality using Cox proportional hazards model (HR 2,31; 95% CI 1,36-3,94), (HR 2,11; 95% CI 1,17-3,82), (HR 2,13; 95% CI 1,07-4,21) and (HR 2,38; 95% CI 1,38-4,12), (HR 2,15; 95% CI 1,14-4,06), (HR 4,43; 95% CI, 1,72-11,37) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MPV and the MPV/P ratio are predictors of clinical severity and mortality in sepsis. The MPV and its coefficient are indicators of the biological behavior of platelets in sepsis. They should be considered as a cost-effective and rapidly available tool that guides the treatment.

Introduction

Sepsis is a dysregulated response of the body to infectious disease [1], of high prevalence, and in which few measures have not been able to reduce its mortality, except for the early initiation of antibiotic therapy and adequate support for organ failure. It is considered a systemic process with a high probability of organic impact. The hemostatic system is not an exception and is frequently disturbed [2]. It has been shown that coagulation and platelet activation can occur in an early phase of this syndrome, playing a decisive role in its pathophysiology [3].

The reason why the platelet, and strictly the mean platelet volume (MPV) marked the biological behavior of sepsis is that the inflammation caused by infectious pathogens induces a systemic response with the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, thrombopoietin, and other substances that stimulate the massive production of young platelets. These platelets are morphologically different in shape (spherical with pseudopods) and size (larger), but functionally poorly competent, inducing thrombogenic activity and adverse clinical outcomes [4, 5]. They activate the NLRP3 inflammasome in immune cells, which induces the expression of IL-1 [5, 6]. Platelets activated by immunoglobulin, thrombin, collagen, or phorbol myristate acetate (PMA) can also release free mitochondria that behave in a damage-associated molecular pattern that amplifies the inflammatory response [5, 7, 8]. In sepsis, a low platelet count is a well-known indicator of poor prognosis [9, 10]. The MPV measured in femtoliters (fL) and the coefficient (ratio) between the MPV and the absolute platelet count are anatomical biomarkers derived from platelets, rarely used, but reported in routine blood counts, are gaining interest as markers of evolution to multiple organ dysfunction, clinical severity, and mortality in septic states [9, 10]. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the usefulness of the MPV and mean platelet volume-to-platelet count (MPV/P) ratio as predictors of mortality and severity in patients with sepsis.

Materials and methods

An observational analytical prospective study was carried out at the Intensive Care Unit of Pablo Arturo Suárez Hospital in Quito-Ecuador, to consecutively enroll patients with the diagnosis of sepsis from bacterial origin, from April 2017 to August 2019. Patients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of sepsis under the SEPSIS-3 septic shock criteria were included [1]. Patients with non-infectious diseases that report increment of MPV such as acute ischemic heart disease, acute embolic cerebrovascular disease, chronic hematological diseases; and who received platelets transfusion during hospitalization were excluded. From the clinical history, age, sex, site of infection, platelet count, leukocyte count, procalcitonin, and serum lactate were documented. The MPV and MPV/P ratio were measured upon admission to intensive care on days 1, 2, and 3. The clinical severity of sepsis was estimated by the presence of septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction (SOFA) score. The mortality outcome was documented on day 28. MPV was measured by impedance in a Siemens 21–20 machine, in venous blood collected in EDTA tubes.

Statistical analyzes were carried out with R software. Absolute and relative values of the qualitative variables, as well as measures of central tendency and variability for the quantitative variables, were reported. Bivariate analyzes were performed to compare the clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters between non-survivors and survivors. Chi-square test was applied for categorical variables, for quantitative variables Mann-Whitney test was used since they show significance in the normality tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov). To compare MVP between day 1, day 2, and day 3, Friedman test of repeated measures (> 2 repetitions) was used. Survival analysis was performed using the Log Rank test (Mantel-Cox), and the Cox regression models as a multivariate analysis. Statistical significance was established if p was <0,05; the Hazard Ratio (HR) was considered significant observing 95% confidence interval, it was considered a risk factor if the lower limit was > 1. The research ethic committee of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Code N°: 100424) approved the development of the study. The ethics committee approved the waiver for clinical data collection of severely injured patients that we’re unable to consent. Deferred written informed consent was approved for recovered patients; the documents were archived by the investigators. No minors were included in this study. Pablo Arturo hospital authorized the use of clinical patient information. The research was carried out in compliance with the internationally required ethical standards, respecting the confidentiality of the patients.

Results

A total of 163 patients with sepsis diagnosis of bacterial origin were followed up for 28 days at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The average age was 61,15 years, with a predominance of females (61,96%). The mean ICU length of hospitalization stay of patients with sepsis was 6,40 days. This study compares a group of patients with sepsis of bacterial origin that did not survive (34,36%) vs. a group of survivors (65,64%). The highest frequency of infection site was the gastrointestinal tract 44,17%, followed by the pulmonary 30,67%, urinary tract 15,95%, and other areas 9,20%. No differences related to infection sites were observed when comparing between groups. 74,69% of the patients received mechanical ventilation, observing significant differences between the non-surviving and surviving groups (94,55% vs. 64,49%; p = <0.00). 56,88% of the patients received sedation, observing significant differences between groups (81,48% vs 44,34%; p = <0,00) (Table 1).

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of patients attended with sepsis at 28 days of hospitalization comparing the hospital discharge condition.

Clinical Characteristics.

	Total	Hospitalization discharge		P-value
		28 days
		No survivals	Survivals
		(n = 56)	(n = 107)
Age, yr, mean ± SD#	61,15 ± 20,94	65,68 ± 18,27	58,79 ± 21,92	0,06
Gender, n (%)$
Male	62 (38,04%)	21 (37,50%)	41 (38,32%)	0,91
Female	101 (61,96%)	35 (62,50%)	66 (61,68%)
SOFA, mean ± DE#
Day 1	8,92 ± 3,96	10,68 ± 3,61	7,99 ± 3,83	<0,00**
Day 2	8,13 ± 3,75	10,30 ± 3,33	7,19 ± 3,54	<0,00**
Day 3	6,65 ± 4,20	10,71 ± 3,78	5,07 ± 3,18	<0,00**
APACHE at hospital admission, mean ± SD#	18,92 ± 8,69	21,24 ± 9,61	17,72 ± 7,95	0,06
Septic shock, n (%)$
Yes	109 (66,87%)	46 (82,14%)	63 (58,88%)	0,00*
No	54 (33,13%)	10 (17,86%)	44 (42,12%)
Site of infection, n (%)$
Gastrointestinal tract	72 (44,17%)	26 (46,43%)	46 (42,99%)	0,84
Pulmonary	50 (30,67%)	18 (32,14%)	32 (29,91%)
Urinary tract	26 (15,95%)	7 (12,50%)	19 (17,76%)
Other	15 (9,20%)	5 (8,93%)	10 (9,35%)
Mechanical ventilation, n (%)$
Yes	121 (74,69%)	52 (94,55%)	69 (64,49%)	<0,00**
No	41 (25,31%)	3 (5,45%)	38 (35,51%)
Sedation, n (%)$
Yes	91 (56,88%)	44 (81,48%)	47 (44,34%)	<0,00**
No	69 (43,13%)	10 (18,52%)	59 (55,56%)
Length of hospital stay, mean ± SD#	6,40 ± 4,71	6,07 ± 5,10	6,58 ± 4,51	0,06

#: Mann-Whitney for independent samples

$: Chi-square test

* significant differences p<0,05

** significant difference p<0,001.

SOFA: Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment. APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation. SD: Standard deviation. n: number of cases.

When comparing the SOFA score between non-survivors and survivors, significant differences were observed in the different evaluation stages on day 1 (10,68 vs. 7,99; p = <0,00), day 2 (10,30 vs. 7,19; p = <0,00) and day 3 (10,71 vs. 5,07; p = <0,00). The APACHE score did not show significant differences between groups. The proportion of patients with septic shock was 66,67%, finding significant differences when comparing non-survivors and survivors (82,14% vs. 58,88%; p = 0,00) respectively (Table 2).

Table 2

Comparison of SOFA score base on ranges of values of MPV and MPV/platelets ratio.

Variables	SOFA
	Day 1		Day 2		Day 3
	Mean ± SD	P-value	Mean ± SD	P-value	Mean ± SD	P-value
MPV Day 1
≥9,45	10,16 ± 3,97	0,00**	9,59 ± 3,87	<0,00**	8,18 ± 4,68	0,00*
<9,45	8,04 ± 3,72		7,15 ± 3,35		5,73 ± 3,61
MPV Day 2
≥8,95	9,30 ± 3,86	0,03*	8,91 ± 3,81	0,01*	7,41 ± 4,34	0,02*
<8,95	8,04 ± 3,53		7,40 ± 3,56		5,97 ± 3,98
MPV Day 3
≥8,85	9,40 ± 3,70	0,00*	8,99 ± 3,43	0,00*	7,73 ± 4,34	<0,00**
<8,85	7,80 ± 3,41		7,11 ± 3,33		5,24 ± 3,53
MPV/platelets Day 1
≥8,18	11,81 ± 3,74	<0,00**	10,48 ± 3,42	<0,00**	8,75 ± 4,13	0,00*
<8,85	8,10 ± 3,63		7,58 ± 3,62		6,20 ± 4,09
MPV/platelets Day 2
≥4,12	9,77 ± 3,70	<0,00**	9,10 ± 3,70	<0,00**	7,69 ± 4,36	<0,00**
<4,12	7,11 ± 3,22		6,80 ± 3,42		5,16 ± 3,47
MPV/platelets Day 3
≥3,95	9,45 ± 3,71	0,00*	8,81 ± 3,48	0,00*	7,62 ± 4,51	<0,00**
<3,95	7,18 ± 3,06		6,78 ± 3,16		4,71 ± 2,60

* Significant differences p<0, 05

** significant difference p<0,001. SOFA: Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment. MPV: Mean Platelet Volume. SD: Standard deviation.

The MVP at days 1, 2 and 3 were 9,11 fL, 8,95 fL and 9,05 fL respectively. Significant differences were observed between non-survivors and survivors on day 1 (9,45 fL vs. 8,93 fl; p = 0,02), day 2 (9,42 fL vs. 8,33 fl; p = 0,01), and day 3 (9,50 fL vs. 8,88 fl; p = 0,02). In the platelet count, significant differences were observed between groups on day 1 (194,19 / mm3 vs. 231,46 / mm3 p = 0,04), day 2 (171,79 / mm3 vs. 221,95 / mm3 p = 0,02) and day 3 (159,32 / mm3 vs. 233,89 / mm3 p = 0,02). The mean of the MPV/P ratio at day 1, 2 and 3 was 7,62; 8,68 and 9,94 respectively. Significant differences were observed between non-survivors and survivors at day 1 (9,47 vs. 6,65; p = 0,02), day 2 (12,31 vs. 7,04; p = 0,00), and day 3 (15,74 vs. 8,88 fl; p = 7,77). Serum lactate presented a mean of 2,94 mmol / L, significant differences were observed between groups at day 1 (3,68 mmol / L vs 2,57 mmol / L; p = 0,00). Procalcitonin presented a mean of 30,51 ng / ml, the mean of SatO2VC was 65,85%, and the mean of leukocytes on day 1, 2 and 3 was 15,47 / mm3, 14,29 / mm3 and 13,92 / mm3 respectively. No significant differences were observed in these parameters when comparing between groups (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparison of laboratory parameters of patients with sepsis based on the condition of hospitalization discharge in survival or no survival.

Laboratory parameters	Total	Condition at hospital discharge		P-value
		No survival	Survival
MPV, mean ± SD# fL
Day 1	9,11 ± 1,46	9,45 ± 1,46	8,93 ± 1,43	0,02*
Day 2	8,95 ± 1,39	9,42 ± 1,51	8,73 ± 1,28	0,01*
Day 3	9,05 ± 1,42	9,50 ± 1,54	8,88 ± 1,35	0,02*
Platelets/mm3, mean ± SD#
Day 1	218,66 ± 131,03	194,19 ± 130,96	231,46 ± 129,85	0,04*
Day 2	206,31 ± 131,41	171,79 ± 116,96	221,95 ± 135,08	0,02*
Day 3	213,61 ± 208,46	159,32 ± 101,79	233,89 ± 233,52	0,02*
MPV/platelets, mean ± SD#
Day 1	7,62 ± 10,74	9,47 ± 12,56	6,65 ± 9,58	0,02*
Day 2	8,68 ± 12,12	12,31 ± 16,36	7,04 ± 9,24	0,00*
Day 3	9,94 ± 17,83	15,74 ± 28,62	7,77 ± 10,93	0,01*
Leukocytes/mm3, mean ± SD#
Day 1	15,47 ± 11,32	15,53 ± 12,86	15,43 ± 10,49	0,37
Day 2	14,29 ± 8,08	13,17 ± 7,89	14,81 ± 8,14	0,11
Day 3	13,92 ± 9,01	13,69 ± 7,59	14,01 ± 9,52	0,99
Lactate, mean ± SD# mmol/L	2,94 ± 2,41	3,68 ± 2,97	2,57 ± 1,98	0,00*
ScvO2 at hospital admission, mean ± SD# %	65,85 ± 13,53	67,70 ± 14,30	64,84 ± 13,09	0,36
Procalcitonin, mean ± SD# ng/ml	30,51 ± 46,20	34,94 ± 44,36	28,22 ± 47,19	0,12

#: Mann-Whitney for independent samples

$: Chi- square test

* significant differences p<0, 05. SD: Standard deviation. MVP; Mean platelet volume. ScvO2: Central Venous Oxygen Saturation.

Severity and mortality predictors

ROC curve analysis of MPV did not predict septic shock at day 1 (AUC 0,56; 95% CI 0,47–0,66). However, at day 2 (AUC 0,61; 95% CI 0,52–0,70), and day 3 (AUC 0,67; 95% CI 0,57–0,76) ROC curve analysis were significant. The cut-off points for the MPV obtained by the Youden index were 9,85 for day 2 (specificity 92%, sensitivity 29%), for day 3 cut-off point was 8,55 (specificity 56%, sensitivity 73%). Although there were no differences between the curves, the one with the best performance corresponded to that of day 3 with a wider area (0,67) and a better relationship between specificity and sensitivity (Fig 1).

Fig 1

ROC curve of MPV to predict septic shock in septic patients.

AUC: area under the curve.

ROC curve analysis of (MPV/P) ratio significatively predicted septic shock at day 1 (AUC 0,59; 95% CI 0,50–0,68), day 2 (AUC 0,63; 95% CI 0,54–0,73), and day 3 (AUC 0,67; 95% CI 0,58–0,77). The cut-off points for MPV/P ratio obtained by Youden index were 4,42 for day 1 (specificity 65%, sensitivity 59%), for day 2 cut-off point was 4,21 (specificity 58%, sensitivity 65%), while for day 3 the cut-off point was 6,05 (specificity 80%, sensitivity 47%) (Fig 2).

Fig 2

ROC curve of MPV/P ratio to predict septic shock in septic patients.

AUC: area under the curve.

ROC curve analysis of MPV predicted mortality at day 1 (AUC 0,60; 95% CI 0,51–0,69), day 2 (AUC 0,62; 95% CI 0,53–0,72), and day 3 (AUC 0,62; 95% CI 0,51–0,72) were significant. The cut-off points for the MPV obtained by Youden index were 9,45 for day 1 (specificity 66%, sensitivity 57%), for day 2 cut-off point was 8,95 (specificity 58%, sensitivity 65%), while for day 3 the cut-off point was 8,85 (specificity 54%, sensitivity 68%) (Fig 3).

Fig 3

ROC curve of MPV to predict the risk of mortality in septic patients.

AUC: area under the curve.

ROC curve analysis of (MPV/P) ratio predicted mortality at day 1 (AUC 0,60 95% CI 0,51–0,70), day 2 (AUC 0,63; 95% CI 0,53–0,72) and day 3 (AUC 0,64; 95% CI 0,53–0,74). The cut-off points for MPV/P ratio obtained by Youden index were 8, 18 for day 1 (specificity 84%, sensitivity 36%), for day 2 cut-off point was 4,12 (specificity 48%, sensitivity 73%), while for day 3 the cut-off point was 3,95 (specificity 45%, sensitivity 86%). The confidence intervals of MPV and MPV/P ratio do not contain the value 0,5 therefore it is stated that the area under the ROC curve is significantly greater than the minimum required 0,5 for all days of evaluation (Fig 4).

Fig 4

ROC curve of MPV/P ratio to predict the risk of mortality in septic patients.

AUC: area under the curve.

In addition, the ROC curves for lactate and procalcitonin were performed. The results showed that serum lactate predicted mortality (AUC 0,62; 95% CI 0,53–0,71), the cut-off point was 2,85 (specificity 65%, sensitivity 56%). On the other hand, procalcitonin did not predict mortality (AUC 0,57; 95% CI 0,47–0,67) (S1 Fig).

Survival analysis

In sepsis patients, the survival time evaluated was 28 days, where a clear tendency of decrease survival probability was observed. On day 1, survival was 95,10%, the highest number of deaths were observed in the first three days of follow-up (44,64%) while at the end of the follow-up (28 days) survival was 65,60%, there was no median survival for this time frame. Cut-off points of survival curves were compared for MPV on days 1, 2, and 3. When comparing the survival curves for the cut-off point of MPV (≥9,45 and <9,45) on day 1, significant differences were observed (p = 0,00). A better behavior was observed for values <9,45. At a cut-off point of MPV (≥8,95 and <8,95) on day 2, significant differences were observed (p = 0,01). A better behavior was observed for values <8,95. At a cut-off point of MPV (≥8,85 and <8,85) on day 3, significant differences were observed (p = 0,02). A better behavior was observed for values <8,85 (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Cumulative survival curve of septic patients by MPV cut-off at day 1 (A); 2 (B); 3 (C).

Cut-off points of survival curves were compared for MPV/P ratio on days 1, 2, and 3. When comparing the survival curves for the cut-off point of MPV/P ratio (≥8,18 and <8,18) on day 1, significant differences were observed (p = 0,00). A better behavior was observed for values <8,18. Cut-off point of MPV (≥4,12 and < 4,12) on day 2, significant differences were observed (p = 0,01). A better behavior was observed for values <4,12. Cut-off point of MPV (≥3,95 and < 3,95) on day 3, significant differences were observed (p = <0,00). A better behavior was observed for values <3,95 (Fig 6).

Fig 6

Cumulative survival curve of septic patients by MPV/P ratio cut-off at day 1 (A); 2 (B); 3 (C).

For all variables, the Cox regression model was carried out in a crude and unadjusted way because of multicollinearity. Lactate was excluded from this analysis, which did not comply with the proportional hazard assumption. All variables were significant (p = <0,05) for survival prognosis; MPV at day 1 ≥ 9,45, day 2 ≥8,95, and day 3 ≥8,85 presented a risk of 2,31; 2,11 and 2,13 times higher for those who presented values lower than the cut-off point. On the other hand, the MPV/P ratio at day 1 ≥8,18; day 2 ≥4,12 and day 3 ≥3,95 presented a risk of 2,38; 2,15 and 4,43 times higher for those who presented values lower than the cut-off point (Table 4).

Table 4

Cox regression for the survival of patients with sepsis.

Variables	β	Hazard Ratio (HR)	HR 95% CI	p-value	Proportional test risk
					p-value
MPV Day 1 ≥9,45	0,84	2,31	1,36–3,94	0,00*	0,09*
MPV Day 2 ≥8,95	0,75	2,11	1,17–3,82	0,01*	0,89*
MPV Day 3 ≥8,85	0,75	2,13	1,07–4,21	0,03*	0,30*
MPV/P Day 1 ≥8,18	0,87	2,38	1,38–4,12	0,00*	0,41*
MPV/P Day 2 ≥4,12	0,77	2,15	1,14–4,06	0,01*	0,86*
MPV/P Day 3 ≥3,95	1,49	4,43	1,72–11,37	0,00*	0,62*

*significant differences p<0, 05. SD: Standard deviation. MVP: Mean platelet volume.

Discussion

The results indicate that the MPV on days 1 (cut-off ≥9,45), day 2 (cut-of ≥8,95), and day 3 (cut-off ≥8,85), were associated with mortality presenting a risk of 2,31; 2,11 and 2,13 times higher for not surviving respectively. MPV/P ratio on days 1 (cut-off ≥8,18), day 2 (cut-off ≥4,12), and day 3 (cut-off ≥3,95) were associated with mortality presenting a risk of 2,38; 2,15 and 4,43 times higher for not surviving respectively.

Several studies have demonstrated the predictive utility of MPV in sepsis [4, 11–16], Vardon-Bounes F, et al [17], reported MPV as a predictor of mortality (HR = 3,79) at 90-day survival study. Additionally, a meta-analysis performed by Tajarernmuang P. et al. [18], reported 11 studies (n = 3724), in which a significant association was determined between the MPV and mortality in critically ill patients on day 3. In our study, the MPV in all-time points was higher in no survivors. Cut-off points of > 9,45fL,> 8,95fL and> 8,85fL were predictors of mortality. Because the kinetics of MPV in sepsis is analogous to the response to antibiotic treatment; which tends to control the systemic infection between 48 to 72 hours of management, in this study we carried out the follow-up during the first 72 hours.

Despite the failure of Ates et al to determine that MPV/P ratio was a good estimator of mortality in sepsis [2]; in our study, the ratios of day 1 (> 8,18), 2 (> 4,12), and day 3 (> 3,95); were significant in the survival curves and were predictive factors of mortality using Cox regression model. This shows the predictive capacity of this marker and confirms its usefulness. Oh et al in 2016, found the predictive utility of MPV/P ratio at admission and 24 hours with both significant HR [19]. This is explainable since the ratio depends on the MPV (numerator) and the platelet count (denominator); then, the larger the platelet and the more marked thrombocytopenia, the more severe sepsis and the higher ratio.

Estimating clinical severity given by the presence of septic shock, the MPV of day 2 (9,85fL) and day 3 (8,55fL) and the MPV/P ratio of day 1 (4,42), day 2 (4,21), and day 3 (8,55), were moderate predictors that reached significance in the ROC curves. Regarding the clinical severity established by multi-organ dysfunction measured with SOFA, where, the MPV and the MPV/P ratio from days 1 to 3 were always higher in non-survivors with significance in all categories, this indicated that platelet biomarkers are good biological estimators of severity in sepsis. Similar findings were reported in other studies [20, 21].

The relevance of our findings lies in the fact that the MPV is reported in routine blood counts and its ratio is calculated with data from the same lab test, with low cost and global availability, making it a profitable anatomical biomarker with immediate clinical applicability, especially in limited-resource sites.

Conclusions

The mean platelet volume (MPV) and mean platelet volume-to-platelet count ratio (MPV/P) are predictors of clinical severity and mortality in sepsis in their serial measurements in the first 72 hours. If the value of MPV and MPV/P ratio has not decreased within 72 hours after adequate antibiotic treatment, the mortality is high. MPV and MPV/P ratio are biomarkers of low cost, therefore they should be considered as tools that guide the treatment of sepsis, fundamentally in low resources settings.

Limitations

A limitation of the study is that MPV was measured with impedance and used EDTA as an anticoagulant. EDTA increases the size of platelets in the post-analytical phase [10], however, when using K3 tubes, which contain little EDTA, this effect is minimized, added to the fact that the intensive therapy samples were processed within the first 15 minutes of receipt, which decreased the measurement bias. It should be remembered that Dastjerdi et al, found an adequate correlation of the MPV measured with EDTA compared to citrate, which further improves the reliability of the results [22]. Another controversial point is that in similar research studies and our work, high MPV was associated with severity and mortality, but there is not a generalized cut-off point, this is partly explained by the heterogeneity in techniques and anticoagulants used. Perhaps there is a racial component, since the values reported in eastern countries, specifically in China, show cut-off points of MPV higher than 11 [16, 23] compared to western countries. Furthermore, the study was carried out in a center located at 2,800 meters above sea level. Studies report that at high altitudes, hypoxia in non-acclimatized people generates hyperreactivity and greater platelet aggregation in response to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and could increase MPV [24]. Evidence report MPV greater than 8.7 to predict adverse outcomes [18, 25, 26]. In our study, the MPV values exceeded this estimate throughout the follow-up. Besides, this study considers only the first 3 days of monitoring MPV. Extending the period of observation to the whole period of the hospitalization of the patients may be very useful and prompts us to carry out longer follow-up in subsequent studies.

Roc curve of serum lactate and procalcitonin.

Serum lactate and procalcitonin Roc curve to predict the risk of mortality in septic patients.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-06833

Mean Platelet Volume and Mean Platelet Volume to Platelet Count Ratio as Predictors of Severity and Mortality in Sepsis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baldeón,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

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

and

2. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Waiver of consent for clinical data collection of severe injured patients that were unable to consent was requested. Deferred consent from surviving patients was requested."

Please clarify whether the waiver of consent and deferred consent were approved.

Please also ensure that you have specified:

- whether consent was informed

- what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

- if your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

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

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

5. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors

on the basis of the reviewer's comments i deem the paper Mean Platelet Volume and Mean Platelet Volume to Platelet Count Ratio as Predictors of Severity and Mortality in Sepsis not suitable for publication. A major revision has to be performed.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

**********

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: 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: The aim of the authors is to assess the value of MPV and MPV to platelet count ratio as predictors of severity and mortality in patients affected by sepsis. This has been previously done in various series of patients and clinical settings, and in sepsis in particular. Nevertheless, the manuscript may be of clinical interest if properly revised in order to highlight potential points of interest.

In particular, I would to raise some major issues concerning the content of the manuscript:

- the authors consider sepsis as all the same event, without giving detail whether it is of bacteric vs. viral origin, nor describe in detail the infective agents. A stratification of patients based on the nature of the infection and assessment of potential difference in influencing MPV and MPV to platelet count ratio may increase the value of the works.

- the authors consider only the first 3 days for MPV monitoring (as the most published reports do). Extending the period of observation to the whole period of the hospitalization of the patients, assessing the dynamics and tracing the trajectory of MPV may also be very useful in understanding this condition and constitute the very point of novelty of the works.

- grammar and syntaxis must be thoroughly revised: MPV is often reported as VMP, numbers are reported with 1 to 3 decimals, number are given with "." or "," .

**********

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: 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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 Aug 2021

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The aim of the authors is to assess the value of MPV and MPV to platelet count ratio as predictors of severity and mortality in patients affected by sepsis. This has been previously done in various series of patients and clinical settings, and in sepsis in particular. Nevertheless, the manuscript may be of clinical interest if properly revised in order to highlight potential points of interest.

Response:

Dear reviewer thank you for your comment and for allowing us to review the manuscript. We agree with you, some studies evaluate the behavior of the mean platelet volume in several clinical scenarios and sepsis in particular. However, this study concerns interest, since it was carried out in Quito, a high-altitude city (2850 MASL), where the hypobaric hypoxia increases platelet reactivity. This could induce a prothrombotic phenotype determining an unusual behavior of the platelet indices. (Rocke AS, Paterson GG, Barber MT, Jackson AIR, Main S, Stannett C, et al. Thromboelastometry and platelet function during acclimatization to high altitudes. Thrombi Haemost. 2018; 118 (1): 63–71).

In particular, I would to raise some major issues concerning the content of the manuscript:

- the authors consider sepsis as all the same event, without giving detail whether it is of bacteric vs. viral origin, nor describe in detail the infective agents. A stratification of patients based on the nature of the infection and assessment of potential difference in influencing MPV and MPV to platelet count ratio may increase the value of the works.

Response:

The study was carried out only in patients with sepsis of bacterial etiology, with diverse infectious foci such as pulmonary, abdominal, urinary, and others; the site of infection was not associated with mortality in the bivariate statistical analysis, so we did not perform subgroup analysis. This was stated and clarified in the manuscript (lines 82, 120-127). Unfortunately, we did not have access to the data to describe in detail the infective agents; this is a limitation of our study.

- the authors consider only the first 3 days for MPV monitoring (as the most published reports do). Extending the period of observation to the whole period of the hospitalization of the patients, assessing the dynamics, and tracing the trajectory of MPV may also be very useful in understanding this condition and constitute the very point of novelty of the works.

Response:

The kinetics of MPV in sepsis parallels the response to the antibiotic treatment administered; that is, it tends to decrease in patients in whom the systemic infection has been controlled and this is observed between 48 to 72 hours of management. For this reason, follow-up during the initial 72 hours is important (lines 249-252). Most studies on this subject, like ours, measure the MPV in the first hours after admission. However, we agree with you, few studies followed up to 15 days after the patients were discharged from intensive care and evaluated 90-day mortality. For example, Vardon Bounes F, Gratacap MP, Groyer S, et al. Kinetics of mean platelet volume predicts mortality in patients with septic shock. PLoS One. 2019; 14 (10): e0223553. Published 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0223553; that found that patients with MPV > 11.6 fL at day 10 of follow-up did not survive (HR: 3.79). This highlights the usefulness of this biomarker both in the critical unit and in hospitalization to determine the prediction of important outcomes such as mortality and prompts us to carry out longer follow-up in subsequent studies. We include this important observation in the manuscript (lines 299-302).

- grammar and syntaxis must be thoroughly revised: MPV is often reported as VMP, numbers are reported with 1 to 3 decimals, the number is given with "." or ",".

Response:

We checked the grammar and syntaxis, the abbreviations are maintained as MPV, numbers reported with 2 decimals, and number are given with "," in all the manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Dec 2021

Mean Platelet Volume and Mean Platelet Volume to Platelet Count Ratio as Predictors of severity and mortality in Sepsis

PONE-D-21-06833R1

Dear Dr. Baldeón,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript is ready for publication

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: Yes

**********

6. 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: No further comments from my side. My comments have been addressed thoroughly and extensively. I thank the authors for the consideration they gave to my observations.

**********

7. 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: No

28 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-06833R1

Mean Platelet Volume and Mean Platelet Volume to Platelet Count Ratio as predictors of severity and mortality in Sepsis

Dear Dr. Baldeón:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE