| Literature DB >> 36072616 |
Abstract
Thromboelastography (TEG) is usually used to monitor coagulation disorder clinically. It is unclear whether TEG has association with urosepsis and sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC). The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical significance of TEG parameters in urosepsis. 90 patients who were admitted to the Emergency Ward and Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) of Ren Ji Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine due to urinary infection from February 2014 to February 2022 were retrospectively studied. Urosepsis patients and non-sepsis patients were separately investigated according to the final discharge diagnosis and Sepsis 3.0. At the same time, patients with urosepsis were further divided into groups of SIC and non-SIC based on the definition of SIC. The data of clinical features, laboratory biomarkers, and TEG parameters were collected and analyzed. There were significant differences in white blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet count, procalcitonin (PCT), fibrinogen (FIB), international normalized ratio (INR), prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, and incidence of urinary tract obstruction between the urosepsis group and non-sepsis group (P < 0.05). In the comparison with non-sepsis group, K value was significantly lower (P = 0.006), while α-angle (P = 0.003) and clot index (CI) (P = 0.048) were significantly higher in urosepsis group. The area under the K value curve excluding urosepsis was 0.667. The areas under CI and α-angle curves for diagnosing urosepsis were 0.682 and 0.621, respectively. The patients in SIC group had significantly higher K value, lower α-angle, and maximum amplitude (MA) than those in non-SIC group (P < 0.05). Coagulopathy is prone to occur in patients with urosepsis. TEG is helpful for assessment of hypercoagulable state in urosepsis and prediction of hypocoagulability in SIC patients implying the dynamic process of DIC.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072616 PMCID: PMC9402385 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9142489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Clinical parameters in patients between two groups.
| Items | Urosepsis group | Non-sepsis group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Gender (male, %) | 19 (42.22) | 21 (46.67) | 0.671 |
| Age (years) | 74.600 ± 13.491 | 69.533 ± 13.541 | 0.079 |
| SOFA | 3 (2, 5) | 0 (0, 1) | 0.000 |
| White blood cell (×1012) | 11.160 (6.940, 17.835) | 7.120 (5.615, 10.930) | 0.003 |
| Platelets (×109) | 138.000 (92.500, 188.000) | 181.000 (159.500, 265.500) | 0.000 |
| C-Reactive protein (mg/L) | 117.880 (73.910, 182.230) | 38.850 (17.400, 109.740) | 0.000 |
| Procalcitonin ( | 3.700 (0.735, 32.295) | 0.250 (0.100, 1.355) | 0.000 |
| Urinary irritation (%) | 9 (20.00) | 13 (28.89) | 0.327 |
| Urinary tract obstruction (%) | 16 (35.56) | 7 (15.56) | 0.030 |
| Indwelling catheter (%) | 5 (11.11) | 5 (11.11) | 1.000 |
| Acute pyelonephritis (%) | 7 (15.56) | 5 (11.11) | 0.535 |
| History of urologic surgery | 5 (11.11) | 5 (11.11) | 1.000 |
Comparative results of routine coagulation indicators and TEG parameters in patients between two groups.
| Items | Group of urosepsis | Group of non-sepsis |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| PT (s) | 13.000 (11.850, 14.150) | 11.900 (10.750, 12.750) | 0.000 |
| APTT (s) | 30.900 (28.000, 33.050) | 29.700 (27.400, 32.250) | 0.194 |
| TT (s) | 16.300 (15.100, 17.650) | 16.200 (14.600, 17.850) | 0.974 |
| FIB (g/l) | 4.980 (4.395, 6.590) | 4.260 (3.620, 5.860) | 0.005 |
| INR | 1.140 (1.050, 1.255) | 1.080 (0.970, 1.135) | 0.000 |
| D-Dimer ( | 1.060 (0.805, 2.310) | 0.520 (0.300, 1.135) | 0.000 |
| R (min) | 6.200 (5.350, 7.150) | 6.700 (5.850, 7.300) | 0.093 |
| K (min) | 1.200 (1.000, 1.500) | 1.500 (1.200, 1.800) | 0.006 |
|
| 75.200 (70.650, 78.300) | 71.500 (67.200, 75.350) | 0.003 |
| MA (mm) | 67.942 ± 7.488 | 67.242 ± 5.780 | 0.621 |
| CI | 1.900 (0.700, 3.050) | 1.200 (-0.100, 2.300) | 0.048 |
| LY30 (%) | 0 (0, 0) | 0 (0, 0) | 0.498 |
| G (d/sc) | 11464.596 ± 4075.792 | 10711.576 ± 2677.610 | 0.303 |
| TMA (min) | 25.522 ± 3.760 | 27.091 ± 4.120 | 0.063 |
Figure 1ROC curve analysis of K time for urosepsis diagnosis.
Figure 2ROC curve analysis of α-angle for urosepsis diagnosis.
Figure 3ROC curve analysis of CI for urosepsis diagnosis.
Comparison results of TEG parameters between the group of SIC and the group of non-SIC.
| Items | SIC group | Non-SIC group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| SIC score | 5 (4, 5) | 2 (2, 3) | 0.000 |
| R (min) | 6.100 (5.150, 7.800) | 6.200 (5.325, 7.075) | 0.783 |
| K (min) | 1.600 (1.050, 2.000) | 1.200 (1.000, 1.400) | 0.045 |
|
| 70.600 (66.300,76.300) | 76.000 (73.050, 78.750) | 0.023 |
| MA (mm) | 64.315 ± 7.831 | 69.416 ± 6.935 | 0.037 |
| CI | 1.000 (−0.850, 2.850) | 2.150 (0.925, 3.175) | 0.101 |
| LY30 (%) | 0 (0, 0) | 0 (0, 0) | 0.259 |
| G (d/sc) | 9670.092 ± 3405.555 | 12193.613 ± 4146.074 | 0.059 |
| TMA (min) | 27.039 ± 4.350 | 24.906 ± 3.375 | 0.085 |