The Role of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Velocity-Time Integral in Assessing Cardiovascular Impairment in Septic Shock

Background: the role of echocardiography in septic shock remains controversial, since depressed cardiac afterload may overestimate left ventricular (LV) systolic performance and mask septic cardiomyopathy (SC). We hypothesized that afterload-adjusted LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV outflow tract velocity-time integral (VTI) values for given systemic vascular resistances (SVR) could provide novel insights into recognizing and stratifying the severity of SC. Methods: in this observational, monocentric study, we prospectively included 14 mechanically-ventilated patients under septic-shock who all had a Pulse index Continuous Cardiac Output (PiCCO) system in place for hemodynamic monitoring. Echocardiographic and PiCCO longitudinal examinations (71 measurements overall) were performed simultaneously at the onset of septic shock and every 12 h for 60 h overall. Results: VTI-derived stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (CO) were significantly correlated with PiCCO measurements (r >= 0.993, both p < 0.001). LVEF and VTI showed linear and exponential inverse correlation to SVR (R2 = 0.183 vs. 0.507 and p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.001, respectively). The equations LVEF = 86.168 - 0.011 x SVR and VTI = 41.23 x e(( -0 .0005 x SVR) )were found to provide predicted values for given SVR. Measured to predicted LVEF ratios (for given SVR), the afterload-adjusted LVEF defined the severity of SC (mild >= 90%, 80% <= moderate < 90% and severe < 80%). Mild SC demonstrated normal/supra-normal LVEF, normal VTI and SVR. Moderate SC showed lower LVEF and SVR, yet increased LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), VTI, SV and CO compared with mild SC (all p < 0.05). Severe SC was distinguished from moderate SC by markedly reduced LVEF, LVEDV, VTI, SV, CO and significantly increased SVR (all p < 0.05). LVEF and VTI decreased over time in mild SC, LVEF decreased in moderate SC, and LVEF and VTI increased over time in severe SC (p <= 0.038). LVEF and VTI demonstrated significant performance in identifying severe SC [cut-off < 61.5%, area under the curve (AUC) = 1 +/- 0.0, sensitivity/specificity = 100/100, p < 0.001 vs. cut-off < 17.9 cm, AUC = 0.882 +/- 0.042, sensitivity/specificity = 80/77, p < 0.001, respectively]. VTI but not LVEF demonstrated significant diagnostic performance in identifying both SVR < 800 dynes.s.cm(-5) and SVR > 1500 dynes.s.cm(-5) (cut-off > 24.46 cm, AUC = 0.889 +/- 0.049, sensitivity/specificity = 75/100, p < 0.001; cut-off < 16.8, AUC = 0.0.857 +/- 0.082, sensitivity/specificity = 83/86, p = 0.002, respectively).Conclusions: our study suggests that ICU bedside echocardiographic assessment of LVEF, VTI and their adjusted to corresponding SVR values provides valuable insights for the comprehension of SC phenotypes, underlying vasoplegia and cardiac output fluctuations in septic shock.

Automated summary

This study suggests that bedside echocardiographic assessment of LVEF, VTI, and their adjustment to corresponding SVR values in ICU provides valuable insights into understanding SC phenotypes, underlying vasoplegia, and cardiac output fluctuations in septic shock.