Echocardiographic assessment of systolic and diastolic myocardial function in patients with sepsis

    Authors

    Keywords

    echocardiography, myocardial dysfunction, sepsis

    DOI

    https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.427

    Full Text

    **Introduction:** Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an unregulated host response to infection. (1) Myocardial dysfunction is common in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Establishing the diagnosis of septic cardiomyopathy is a great challenge, and echocardiography as a key diagnostic tool provides several possibilities for the diagnosis of septic cardiomyopathy. Systolic and diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle is present in 50-60% of patients with sepsis. Right ventricular dysfunction is present in 50-55% of cases, while isolated right ventricular dysfunction is present in 47% of cases. (2, 3) Diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle is very common in septic shock, and this represents an early biomarker and has prognostic significance. (4) Aim: To examine the influence of sepsis on systolic and diastolic myocardial function in patients with sepsis and septic shock using echocardiographic parameters. **Patients and Methods:** The research included 20 adult patients with a diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, hospitalized at the University Hospital Centre Osijek. Each patient underwent two echocardiographic evaluations: the first one on the second day of hospitalization, and the second between the seventh and tenth day of hospitalization for comparison. Key echocardiographic parameters were monitored, which included mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE), left ventricular ejection fraction according to Simpson biplane, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), systolic wave prime (S’) for assessment of left and right ventricular systolic function, and for assessment of left ventricular diastolic function the early diastolic transmitral flow by Doppler (E wave), late diastolic transmitral flow by Doppler (A wave) E/A ratio, mitral annular velocity obtained by tissue Doppler (E`), E/E´ ratio, and isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT). **Results**: In the follow-up examination, compared to the first examination, the values ​​of E` were significantly higher (median 1.0 vs. 0.06) (Wilcoxon test, P = 0.01), and IVRT values were significantly lower (median 81 vs. 99), while there were no other significant differences between measured values in two examinations (**Table 1**). ### TABLE 1: Differences in echocardiography findings at the first and follow-up examination. | | **Median** **(interquartile range)** — **First examination** | **Median** **(interquartile range)** — **Follow-up examination** | **Difference** | **95% CI** | **P*** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | MAPSE | 12.75 (10 – 15) | 13.0 (10.5 – 14.5) | 0 | -1 do 1 | 0.82 | | TAPSE | 22.5 (20 – 26) | 24.5 (21.5 – 26.5) | 1 | -1 do 3.5 | 0.42 | | E wave | 0.84 (0.7 – 1.05) | 0.76 (0.60 – 0.90) | -0.08 | -0.16 do 0.04 | 0.16 | | A wave | 0.79 (0.6 – 0.89) | 0.75 (0.67 – 0.89) | 0.05 | -0.09 do 0.17 | 0.51 | | E/A | 1.31 (0.83 – 1.50) | 0.9 (0.82 – 1.26) | -0.17 | -0.37 do 0 | 0.06 | | E’ | 0.06 (0.043 – 0.085) | 1.0 (0.06 – 108.0) | 53.9 | 0.03 do 104.9 | 0.01 | | E/E’ | 11.55 (7.8 – 13.9) | 11.0 (0.09 – 14.4) | -2.7 | -5.65 do 1.31 | 0.17 | | IVRT | 99 (90 – 112) | 81 (9.9 – 96.8) | -44.05 | -62.2 do -4.5 | 0.01 | | S’ | 15.0 (13 – 16.75) | 16.0 (14.3 – 16) | 0.75 | -0.5 do 2.0 | 0.09 | | EF Simpson BP | 58.7 (54 – 61.8) | 58.0 (53.0 – 62.3) | -0.55 | -3 do 2.2 | 0.60 | [†] *Wilcoxon test (Hodges-Lehmann`s difference of medians); MAPSE =mitral annular plane systolic excursion; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; E wave = early diastolic transmitral flow by Dopple; A wave- late transmitral flow by Doppler; E/A ratio, E` mitral annular velocity by tissue Doppler; E/E` ratio; IVRT = isovolumic relaxation time; S` = sistolic wave prime; EF Simpson BP = left ventricular ejection fraction according to Simpson Biplane **Conclusion:** The results of this study suggest a reversible form of diastolic dysfunction caused by sepsis. It is a common phenomenon in septic cardiomyopathy, where cardiac function can be significantly compromised in the acute phase, but with appropriate treatment, function is restored within a few days.

    Literature

    1. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013 November 21;369(21):2063. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1312359
    2. Vallabhajosyula S, Kumar M, Pandompatam G, Sakhuja A, Kashyap R, Kashani K, et al. Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock: an 8-year historical cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017 September 7;7(1):94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-017-0319-9
    3. Lanspa MJ, Cirulis MM, Wiley BM, Olsen TD, Wilson EL, Beesley SJ, et al. Right Ventricular Dysfunction in Early Sepsis and Septic Shock. Chest. 2021 March;159(3):1055–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.274
    4. Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 December;17(12):1321–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jew082
    Cardiologia Croatica
    Back to search

    Echocardiographic assessment of systolic and diastolic myocardial function in patients with sepsis

    Extended Abstract
    Issue11-12
    Published
    Pages427-428
    PDF via DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.427
    echocardiography
    myocardial dysfunction
    sepsis

    Authors

    Ivana Lukić*ORCIDUniversity Hospital Centre Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
    Lana MaričićORCIDUniversity Hospital Centre Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
    Kristina Selthofer-RelatićORCIDUniversity Hospital Centre Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
    Željka Breškić ĆurićORCIDJosip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Faculty of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia

    *Correspondence email: lukiciva88@gmail.com

    Full Text

    Introduction: Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by an unregulated host response to infection. (1) Myocardial dysfunction is common in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Establishing the diagnosis of septic cardiomyopathy is a great challenge, and echocardiography as a key diagnostic tool provides several possibilities for the diagnosis of septic cardiomyopathy. Systolic and diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle is present in 50-60% of patients with sepsis. Right ventricular dysfunction is present in 50-55% of cases, while isolated right ventricular dysfunction is present in 47% of cases. (2, 3) Diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle is very common in septic shock, and this represents an early biomarker and has prognostic significance. (4) Aim: To examine the influence of sepsis on systolic and diastolic myocardial function in patients with sepsis and septic shock using echocardiographic parameters.

    Patients and Methods: The research included 20 adult patients with a diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, hospitalized at the University Hospital Centre Osijek. Each patient underwent two echocardiographic evaluations: the first one on the second day of hospitalization, and the second between the seventh and tenth day of hospitalization for comparison. Key echocardiographic parameters were monitored, which included mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE), left ventricular ejection fraction according to Simpson biplane, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), systolic wave prime (S’) for assessment of left and right ventricular systolic function, and for assessment of left ventricular diastolic function the early diastolic transmitral flow by Doppler (E wave), late diastolic transmitral flow by Doppler (A wave) E/A ratio, mitral annular velocity obtained by tissue Doppler (E`), E/E´ ratio, and isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT).

    Results: In the follow-up examination, compared to the first examination, the values ​​of E` were significantly higher (median 1.0 vs. 0.06) (Wilcoxon test, P = 0.01), and IVRT values were significantly lower (median 81 vs. 99), while there were no other significant differences between measured values in two examinations (Table 1).

    TABLE 1: Differences in echocardiography findings at the first and follow-up examination.

    MAPSE
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    12.75 (10 – 15)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    13.0 (10.5 – 14.5)
    Difference
    0
    95% CI
    -1 do 1
    P*
    0.82
    TAPSE
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    22.5 (20 – 26)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    24.5 (21.5 – 26.5)
    Difference
    1
    95% CI
    -1 do 3.5
    P*
    0.42
    E wave
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    0.84 (0.7 – 1.05)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    0.76 (0.60 – 0.90)
    Difference
    -0.08
    95% CI
    -0.16 do 0.04
    P*
    0.16
    A wave
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    0.79 (0.6 – 0.89)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    0.75 (0.67 – 0.89)
    Difference
    0.05
    95% CI
    -0.09 do 0.17
    P*
    0.51
    E/A
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    1.31 (0.83 – 1.50)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    0.9 (0.82 – 1.26)
    Difference
    -0.17
    95% CI
    -0.37 do 0
    P*
    0.06
    E’
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    0.06 (0.043 – 0.085)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    1.0 (0.06 – 108.0)
    Difference
    53.9
    95% CI
    0.03 do 104.9
    P*
    0.01
    E/E’
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    11.55 (7.8 – 13.9)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    11.0 (0.09 – 14.4)
    Difference
    -2.7
    95% CI
    -5.65 do 1.31
    P*
    0.17
    IVRT
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    99 (90 – 112)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    81 (9.9 – 96.8)
    Difference
    -44.05
    95% CI
    -62.2 do -4.5
    P*
    0.01
    S’
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    15.0 (13 – 16.75)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    16.0 (14.3 – 16)
    Difference
    0.75
    95% CI
    -0.5 do 2.0
    P*
    0.09
    EF Simpson BP
    Median (interquartile range)First examination
    58.7 (54 – 61.8)
    Median (interquartile range)Follow-up examination
    58.0 (53.0 – 62.3)
    Difference
    -0.55
    95% CI
    -3 do 2.2
    P*
    0.60

    *Wilcoxon test (Hodges-Lehmann`s difference of medians); MAPSE =mitral annular plane systolic excursion; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; E wave = early diastolic transmitral flow by Dopple; A wave- late transmitral flow by Doppler; E/A ratio, E` mitral annular velocity by tissue Doppler; E/E` ratio; IVRT = isovolumic relaxation time; S` = sistolic wave prime; EF Simpson BP = left ventricular ejection fraction according to Simpson Biplane

    Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a reversible form of diastolic dysfunction caused by sepsis. It is a common phenomenon in septic cardiomyopathy, where cardiac function can be significantly compromised in the acute phase, but with appropriate treatment, function is restored within a few days.

    Literature

    1. 1.
      Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013 November 21;369(21):2063.DOI
    2. 2.
      Vallabhajosyula S, Kumar M, Pandompatam G, Sakhuja A, Kashyap R, Kashani K, et al. Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock: an 8-year historical cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017 September 7;7(1):94.DOI
    3. 3.
      Lanspa MJ, Cirulis MM, Wiley BM, Olsen TD, Wilson EL, Beesley SJ, et al. Right Ventricular Dysfunction in Early Sepsis and Septic Shock. Chest. 2021 March;159(3):1055–63.DOI
    4. 4.
      Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 December;17(12):1321–60.DOI