4.7 Article

Clinical impact of visually assessed right ventricular dysfunction in patients with septic shock

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98397-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed data from septic shock patients and found that visually-assessed right ventricular dysfunction was associated with in-hospital mortality, lethal arrhythmia, and hemodynamic indicators, suggesting prognostic value in predicting patient outcomes.
We retrospectively analyzed data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III critical care database to determine whether visually-assessed right ventricular (RV) dysfunction was associated with clinical outcomes in septic shock patients. Associations between visually-assessed RV dysfunction by echocardiography and in-hospital mortality, lethal arrhythmia, and hemodynamic indicators to determine the prognostic value of RV dysfunction in patients with septic shock were analyzed. Propensity score analysis showed RV dysfunction was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death in patients with septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99-2.32; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, RV dysfunction was associated with in-hospital death (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.91-2.53; P < 0.001), lethal arrhythmia (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.34-3.57; P < 0.001), and tendency for increased blood lactate levels (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.14-1.50; P < 0.001) independent of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. RV dysfunction was associated with lower cardiac output, pulmonary artery pressure index, and RV stroke work index. In patients with septic shock, visually-assessed RV dysfunction was associated with in-hospital mortality, lethal arrhythmia, and circulatory insufficiency independent of LV dysfunction. Visual assessment of RV dysfunction using echocardiography might help to identify the short-term prognosis of patients with septic shock by reflecting hemodynamic status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据