Abstract
Background
To investigate the various types of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and their association with clinical outcomes in septic patients.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of sepsis and septic shock patients admitted to a tertiary hospital intensive care unit (ICU). Left ventricular dysfunction was determined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Right ventricular systolic dysfunction (RVSD) was determined by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), or RV S’ velocity. Cardiac function was categorized into five types: (1) normal cardiac function (LVEF > 50% but ≤ 70%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec); (2) biventricular dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 50%, TAPSE < 17 mm or RV FAC < 35% or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec); (3) isolated LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 50%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec); (4) isolated RV dysfunction (LVEF > 50%, TAPSE < 17 mm or RV FAC < 35% or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec); and (5) hyperdynamic LV function (LVEF > 70%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
Results
A cohort of 702 septic patients was analyzed. Patients with biventricular dysfunction (n = 113) and isolated RV dysfunction (n = 117) exhibited mortality rates of 34.5% and 36.7%, respectively. In comparison, lower mortality rates were observed in patients with isolated LV dysfunction (n = 72), hyperdynamic LV function (n = 86), and normal cardiac function (n = 314), with rates of 15.3%, 15.1% and 9.2%, respectively. Cox regression analysis confirmed that biventricular dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR] 2.312, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.291–4.139, p = 0.005) and isolated RV dysfunction (HR 2.655, 95% CI 1.455–4.843, p = 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Neither isolated LV dysfunction (HR 1.171, 95% CI 0.463–2.960, p = 0.739) nor hyperdynamic LV function (HR 2.153, 95% CI 0.971–4.773, p = 0.059) were independently associated with 30-day mortality.
Conclusions
Septic patients with biventricular dysfunction or isolated RV dysfunction had significantly higher 30-day mortality rates compared to those with normal cardiac function. Notably, hyperdynamic LV function also showed a trend toward higher 30-day mortality than normal cardiac function, although this association did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, isolated LV dysfunction was not associated with 30-day mortality.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-025-03233-5.
Keywords: Sepsis, Ventricular dysfunction, Prognosis
Background
Sepsis is a major global health concern and is still associated with unacceptably high mortality in critically ill patients [1, 2]. Cardiac dysfunction is a frequent complication of sepsis and plays a critical role in exacerbating hemodynamic instability, further complicating patient outcomes [3].
With the emergence of advanced critical care echocardiography, the precise definition of septic cardiomyopathy has become increasingly complex, introducing significant uncertainty into its characterization. Currently, there is no formalized or consensus-based definition of septic cardiomyopathy [4]. Previous studies have highlighted that both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction can occur in sepsis, either in isolation or concurrently [5–7]. However, comprehensive assessment of LV and RV function of sepsis patients remain limited, and the prognostic significance of septic cardiomyopathy has yet to be fully elucidated [8]. Therefore, our study aims to investigate the patterns of LV and RV dysfunction in septic patients and their association with hemodynamic outcomes and 30-day mortality. By addressing these gaps, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of septic cardiomyopathy and its clinical implications.
Study design and methods
This is a secondary analysis of a prospectively identified septic patients admitted from November 2019 to December 2024 at a tertiary hospital intensive care unit (ICU) [9].
Study population
Sepsis was defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection, manifested by an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more [10].
Patients were excluded if they had the following conditions including a history of chronic heart failure or cardiac surgery, severe valvular disease, acute coronary syndrome within 1 week, moderate to severe chronic pulmonary hypertension [11], or inadequate echocardiographic image quality. We also excluded patients who withheld life support.
The study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of our institution (Approval No. ZS-2166). Written informed consent on the review and research of the patients’ medical data was signed by the patients or their surrogates.
Echocardiography
A comprehensive transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed on septic patients within 24 h of ICU admission. TTE was performed by two experienced physicians (H. Z. and Q. Z.), each with over ten years of expertise in critical care echocardiography, using a 2.5 MHZ phased array probe (Mindray, M9, Shenzhen, China). Images were stored for offline analysis and measurements were obtained from at least three cardiac cycles with interpretations adhering to the PRICES statement [12]. Intra- and interobserver variabilities for key measurements by these investigators have been previously reported [9].
A standardized TTE protocol was established prior to study initiation, incorporating comprehensive quantitative assessments of right ventricular systolic, LV diastolic and systolic function. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional area change (FAC), right and left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio (R/LVEDA), left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral (LVOT-VTI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE), mitral peak E velocity (E), tissue Doppler velocity of lateral and medial mitral annuli at early diastole (e’), tricuspid regurgitation, internal diameter of inferior vena cava (IVCD) and stroke volume index (SVI) were obtained using previously described methods [9]. RV S’ was measured by positioning the sample volume on the lateral tricuspid valve ring with pulsed-wave tissue Doppler in apical 4-chamber view. Cardiac index (CI) was calculated as heart rate (HR) × SVI, with an abnormal cutoff value set at below 2.5 L/min/m2 [13]. RV dilation was defined as R/LVEDA ≥ 0.6 and acute cor pulmonale (ACP) was defined as RV dilation with septal paradoxical motion at end-systole [14]. RVSD was determined by TAPSE < 17 mm or RV FAC < 35% or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec [15]. Systemic venous congestion was defined as IVCD ≥ 20 mm plus hepatic vein S < D [16, 17]. LV Apical ballooning was diagnosed based on the following criteria: (1) symmetrical and apical regional wall motion abnormality with LVEF ≤ 50%. (2) Non-specific ST-T alterations with moderately elevated serum troponin; (3) Repeated echocardiography in a few days confirming complete recovery of LV function [18, 19].
Cardiac function was categorized into five types based on LV and RV systolic function: (1) normal cardiac function (LVEF > 50% but ≤ 70%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec); (2) biventricular dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 50%, TAPSE < 17 mm or RV FAC < 35% or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec); (3) isolated LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 50%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec); (4) isolated RV dysfunction (LVEF > 50%, TAPSE < 17 mm or RV FAC < 35% or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec); and (5) hyperdynamic LV function (LVEF > 70%, TAPSE ≥ 17 mm, RV FAC ≥ 35%, and RV S’ ≥9.5 cm/sec).
Clinical data collected
Upon admission to the ICU, the demographic details of the patients, along with their Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores and SOFA scores, were meticulously recorded. Additionally, at the time of the echocardiographic examination, a set of physiological parameters was gathered for each patient. These parameters included HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), norepinephrine (NE) dose, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), plateau pressure (Pplat), arterial lactate, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2), partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and the total volume of fluid balance. We also collected the maximum values of biomarkers within the first 24 h ICU admission, including neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, troponin I level and D-dimer level.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the 30-day all-cause mortality among septic patients. The secondary outcomes included ICU-free days, the incidence of ACP, LV apical ballooning, low CI and systemic venous congestion.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD or the median and interquartile range. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. The normality of the distributions for the continuous variables was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Differences among groups were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, the chi-squared test, or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Cumulative survival curves of the 30-day follow-up were estimated using the Kaplan‒Meier method. Prognostic factors for a 30-day mortality among the four groups were determined using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Based on the results of the univariate Cox regression model, the baseline covariables with p values < 0.1 were selected by the stepwise method and were included in the multivariate Cox regression models as covariables. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0 (SPSSInc., Chicago, Ill., USA) and Graphpad Prism (6.01 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla California, USA). Two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
General characteristics
A total of 848 patients with sepsis were evaluated for study enrolment. We excluded 146 patients and enrolled 702 patients were enrolled, among whom 314 patients had normal cardiac function, 113 had biventricular dysfunction, 72 had isolated LV dysfunction, 117 had isolated RV dysfunction, and 86 had hyperdynamic LV function (Fig. 1). The five groups differed significantly in baseline characteristics including age, APACHE II score, SOFA score, vasocative inotropic score, HR, CVP, PEEP, Pplat, PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2, proportion of lung infection and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lactate level, ICU-free days and 30-day mortality (all p < 0.01) (Table 1). All five groups exhibited comparable neutrophil counts (p = 0.429), while patients with biventricular dysfunction demonstrated the lowest lymphocyte counts (p = 0.001). Patients with isolated LV dysfunction showed the highest CRP levels, although this difference reached statistical significance only when compared to the hyperdynamic LV group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients with biventricular dysfunction had significantly elevated troponin I levels compared to those with normal cardiac function and hyperdynamic LV function (p < 0.05). Similarly, patients with isolated LV dysfunction also displayed higher troponin I levels compared to those with normal cardiac function and hyperdynamic LV function (p < 0.05) (Table 2).
Fig. 1.
Flow chart of this study. TTE: transthoracic echocardiography; LV: left ventricular; RV: right ventricular
Table 1.
General characteristics of all the patients
| Categories | All patients (n = 702) |
Normal function (n = 314) |
Biventricular dysunfunction (n = 113) |
Isolated LV dysfunction (n = 72) |
Isolated RV dysfunction (n = 117) |
Hyperdynamic LV function (n = 86) |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 65 (53, 74) | 62 (51, 72) | 65 (50, 73) | 63 (51, 72) | 70 (63, 79) | 69 (56, 78) | < 0.001 |
| Male gender(n, %) | 427 (60.8) | 190 (60.5) | 79 (69.9) | 39 (54.2) | 73 (62.4) | 46 (53.5) | 0.119 |
| APACHE II | 21 (16, 27) | 19 (15, 25) | 22 (18, 29) | 23 (16, 28) | 24 (17, 28) | 20 (15, 26) | < 0.001 |
| SOFA | 11 (9, 13) | 10 (8, 13) | 12 (10, 15) | 12 (10, 13) | 12 (9, 15) | 10 (8, 12) | < 0.001 |
| Site of infection(n, %) | |||||||
| Abdominal | 340 (48.4) | 170 (54.1) | 46 (40.7) | 30 (41.7) | 49 (41.9) | 45 (52.3) | 0.031 |
| Lung | 142 (20.2) | 49 (15.6) | 32 (28.3) | 14 (19.4) | 34 (29.1) | 13 (15.1) | 0.003 |
| Urinary tract | 37 (5.3) | 14 (4.5) | 8 (7.1) | 3 (4.2) | 7 (6.0) | 5 (5.8) | 0.826 |
| Biliary tract | 44 (6.3) | 20 (6.4) | 6 (5.3) | 7 (9.7) | 5 (4.3) | 6 (7.0) | 0.643 |
| Soft tissue | 44 (6.3) | 23 (7.3) | 6 (5.3) | 5 (6.9) | 4 (3.4) | 6 (7.0) | 0.641 |
| aOthers | 95 (13.5) | 38 (12.1) | 15 (13.3) | 13 (18.1) | 18 (15.4) | 11 (12.8) | 0.699 |
| Timing of echo (hr) | 13 (8, 17) | 12 (7, 17) | 14 (8, 17) | 14 (9, 16) | 14 (8, 16) | 13 (8, 15) | 0.164 |
| NE infusion(n, %) | 586 (83.5) | 242 (77.1) | 108 (95.6) | 64 (88.9) | 99 (84.6) | 73 (84.9) | < 0.001 |
| Epinephrine (n, %) | 8 (1.1) | 2 (1.0) | 2 (1.8) | 0 (0) | 4 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 0.081 |
| Dobutamine (n, %) | 7 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.8) | 3 (4.2) | 2 (1.7) | 0 (0) | 0.013 |
| Vasopressin (n, %) | 41 (5.8) | 11 (3.5) | 14 (12.4) | 7 (9.7) | 7 (6.0) | 2 (2.3) | 0.003 |
| VIS | 20 (10, 48) | 15 (3, 38) | 40 (15, 80) | 23 (10, 50) | 29 (11, 60) | 19 (8, 30) | < 0.001 |
| HR (bpm) | 91 (80, 105) | 90 (79, 102) | 103 (87, 115) | 91 (79, 110) | 92 (80, 105) | 90 (77, 100) | < 0.001 |
| MAP(mm Hg) | 79 (72, 85) | 80 (73, 87) | 77 (71, 84) | 77 (72, 82) | 79 (71, 85) | 76 (70, 81) | 0.061 |
| CVP (mm Hg) | 8 (6, 10) | 7 (5, 9) | 10 (8, 12) | 8 (7, 10) | 8 (7, 10) | 7 (6, 10) | < 0.001 |
| MV (n, %) | 549 (78.2) | 227 (72.3) | 102 (90.3) | 61 (84.7) | 101 (86.3) | 58 (67.4) | < 0.001 |
| PEEP (cmH2O) | 6 (5, 8) | 6 (5, 8) | 7 (5, 8) | 6 (5, 8) | 7 (5, 9) | 6 (5, 8) | < 0.001 |
| Pplat (cmH2O) | 18 (16, 21) | 18 (15, 20) | 19 (17, 22) | 19 (16, 20) | 20 (17, 23) | 18 (16, 20) | < 0.001 |
| PaCO2 (mm Hg) | 39 (35, 44) | 38 (35, 42) | 41 (36, 44) | 40 (35, 43) | 40 (35, 46) | 38 (35, 40) | 0.458 |
| PaO2/FiO2 | 260 (206, 327) | 275 (218, 333) | 247 (171, 305) | 245 (208, 304) | 238 (159, 301) | 285 (216, 370) | < 0.001 |
| Maximum lactate (mmol/L) | 2.5 (1.5, 4.2) | 2.3 (1.4, 3.7) | 2.9 (2.1, 5.9) | 3.1 (1.8, 5.2) | 3.0 (1.6, 4.7) | 2.1 (1.3, 3.6) | < 0.001 |
| ARDS (n, %) | 128 (18.2) | 43 (13.7) | 29 (25.7) | 10 (13.9) | 34 (29.1) | 12 (14.0) | 0.001 |
| Neutrophil (×109/L) | 13.1 (8.9, 18.6) | 13.5 (9.3, 18.3) | 13.1 (6.8, 19.3) | 14.3 (10.0, 19.9) | 11.7 (9.4, 18.5) | 12.0 (8.2, 17.4) | 0.429 |
| Lymphocyte (×109/L) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.1) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.6) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 0.001 |
| Platelet (×109/L) | 171 (111, 241) | 191 (125, 254) | 133 (84, 194) | 161 (104, 227) | 174 (99, 243) | 162 (116, 221) | 0.003 |
| CRP(mg/L) | 202 (113, 275) | 199 (104, 265) | 244 (166, 304) | 250 (147, 305) | 194 (99, 261) | 175 (110, 239) | 0.033 |
| Troponin I (ng/ml) | 0.099 (0.017, 0.557) | 0.040 (0.017, 0.270) | 0.458 (0.115, 2.119) | 0.410 (0.116, 2.723) | 0.142 (0.028, 0.630) | 0.068 (0.017, 0.401) | < 0.001 |
| D-dimer (mg/L) | 8.7 (5.1, 16.3) | 8.1 (4.6, 13.6) | 10.2 (5.9, 19.0) | 11.9 (5.5, 25.6) | 9.6 (4.9, 17.0) | 9.9 (4.8, 17.6) | 0.046 |
| ICU-free days | 22 (0, 26) | 24 (15, 27) | 15 (0, 24) | 21 (2, 25) | 13 (0, 23) | 25 (19, 27) | < 0.001 |
| 30-day mortality (n, %) | 135 (19.2) | 29 (9.2) | 39 (34.5) | 11 (15.3) | 43 (36.7) | 13 (15.1) | < 0.001 |
APACHE acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment, NE norepinephrine, HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, CVP central venous pressure, MV mechanical ventilation, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, Pplat plateau pressure, PaCO2 partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PaO2/FiO2 partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, ICU intensive care unit, VIS vasoactive inotropic score
aOthers: pleural infection, CRBSI, intracranial infection, mediastinal infection, and infections of unidentified origin.
Table 2.
Echocardiographic parameters
| Categories | Number of measurements | All patients (n = 702) |
Normal function (n = 314) |
Biventricular dysunfunction (n = 113) |
Isolated LV dysfunction (n = 72) |
Isolated RV dysfunction (n = 117) |
Hyperdynamic LV function (n = 86) |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVEF(%) | 702 | 58 (49, 66) | 61 (57, 65) | 40 (34, 45) | 43 (39, 46) | 59 (54, 66) | 74 (72, 77) | < 0.001 |
| MAPSE(mm) | 633 | 13.6 ± 3.4 | 14.8 ± 3.1 | 10.9 ± 3.1 | 12.3 ± 3.0 | 12.3 ± 2.8 | 15.7 ± 2.1 | < 0.001 |
| E(cm/S) | 670 | 65 (53, 81) | 68 (56, 81) | 64 (49, 80) | 63 (49, 84) | 56 (46, 77) | 69 (57, 85) | 0.001 |
| Lateral e’ (cm/S) | 586 | 8.8 (6.8, 10.9) | 9.4 (7.5, 11.4) | 7.8 (5.9, 9.6) | 8.9 (6.3, 10.4) | 7.9 (5.9, 10.0) | 9.5 (7.4, 11.6) | < 0.001 |
| Medial e’(cm/S) | 586 | 6.7 (5.2, 8.3) | 7.0 (5.8, 8.9) | 5.5 (4.3, 7.3) | 6.4 (5.0, 8.4) | 6.0 (4.7, 7.2) | 7.0 (5.9, 8.5) | < 0.001 |
| Average E/e’ | 586 | 8.6 (6.7, 10.9) | 8.1 (6.6, 10.2) | 9.6 (7.3, 11.5) | 8.9 (7.3, 11.2) | 8.3 (645, 11.1) | 8.3 (7.0, 10.1) | 0.024 |
| TAPSE(mm) | 699 | 19.4 ± 4.8 | 21.7 ± 3.5 | 14.2 ± 3.3 | 20.7 ± 2.8 | 14.7 ± 2.8 | 23.0 ± 3.5 | < 0.001 |
| FAC(%) | 576 | 46 (38, 54) | 48 (43, 54) | 32 (27, 37) | 42 (39, 51) | 41 (32, 51) | 55 (50, 61) | < 0.001 |
| S’ | 521 | 12.6 (10.6, 14.8) | 13.7 (12.0, 15.3) | 10.0 (8.3, 11.8) | 12.0 (10.5, 14.0) | 10.5 (9.0, 12.5) | 15.3 (13.0, 17.9) | < 0.001 |
| TR(m/S) | 632 | 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) | 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) | 2.3 (2.0, 2.5) | 2.3 (2.0, 2.4) | 2.4 (2.1, 2.6) | 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) | 0.018 |
| PASP | 625 | 28.3 (23.3, 34.2) | 27.3 (22.1, 32.2) | 29.5 (24.4, 36.0) | 27.0 (23.6, 31.2) | 30.0 (23.6, 35.6) | 30.7 (25.1, 36.0) | 0.001 |
| TAPSE/PASP | 623 | 0.68 (0.51, 0.89) | 0.79 (0.64, 0.99) | 0.46 (0.36, 0.60) | 0.73 (0.61, 0.91) | 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) | 0.8 (0.59, 0.92) | < 0.001 |
| R/LVEDA ratio | 598 | 0.52 (0.45, 0.62) | 0.52 (0.46, 0.61) | 0.53 (0.46, 0.63) | 0.48 (0.40, 0.54) | 0.52 (0.45, 0.66) | 0.55 (0.48, 0.65) | 0.002 |
| LVOT-VTI(cm) | 670 | 16.6 (13.7, 19.3) | 17.8 (15.6, 20.1) | 12.2 (10.5, 14.9) | 15.4 (12.7, 17.8) | 15.5 (12.9, 17.4) | 19.1 (16.8, 21.8) | < 0.001 |
| SVI(ml/min/m2) | 656 | 33.6 (27.5, 40.4) | 35.9 (30.1, 41.7) | 26.7 (21.5, 31.9) | 32.2 (24.7, 38.7) | 30.8 (25.2, 37.7) | 39.3 (33.0, 45.9) | < 0.001 |
| CI(L/min/m2) | 656 | 3.0 (2.5, 3.6) | 3.1 (2.6, 3.7) | 2.6 (2.1, 3.2) | 2.7 (2.2, 3.4) | 2.9 (2.4, 3.4) | 3.5 (2.9, 4.1) | < 0.001 |
| IVCD (mm) | 623 | 17.9 (14.8, 21.0) | 17.2 (14.5, 20.3) | 20.0 (16.9, 22.6) | 18.6 (14.0, 21.2) | 18.2 (14.0, 21.3) | 17.0 (14.1, 20.4) | < 0.001 |
| HVS (cm/s) | 617 | 25.9 (19.0, 33.8) | 28.6 (22.0, 37.9) | 20.1 (15.1, 26.7) | 23.7 (18.3, 30.5) | 22.3 (16.6, 29.7) | 29.9 (20.7, 36.6) | < 0.001 |
| HVD (cm/s) | 617 | 17.0 (12.7, 22.0) | 17.9 (13.3, 23.0) | 14.6 (11.5, 19.0) | 14.3 (11.0, 19.9) | 16.2 (12.1, 22.0) | 19.0 (15.9, 22.0) | 0.004 |
| ACP (n, %) | 22 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 10 (8.8) | 0 (0) | 12 (10.2) | 0 (0) | < 0.001 | |
| Apical ballooning | 17 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.8) | 15 (20.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | < 0.001 | |
| Low CI | 171 (24.4) | 51 (16.2) | 52 (46.0) | 30 (41.7) | 28 (23.9) | 10 (11.6) | < 0.001 | |
| Congestion (n, %) | 55 (7.8) | 5 (1.6) | 25 (22.1) | 3 (4.2) | 20 (17.1) | 2 (2.3) | < 0.001 |
LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MAPSE mitral annular plane systolic excursion, E mitral peak E velocity, TAPSE tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, FAC fractional area change, TR tricuspid regurgitation, PASP pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, R/LVEDA right and left end-diastolic area ratio, LVOT-VTI left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral, SVI stroke volume index, CI cardiac index, IVCD diameter of inferior vena cava, HV hepatic vein, ACP acute cor pulmonale.
Comparison of echocardiographic parameters among the five groups
The five groups showed significant differences in LVEF, TAPSE, RV FAC and RV S’ (p < 0.001). The five groups also differed significantly in E/e’ and TAPSE/PASP (p < 0.05). ACP was exclusively identified in patients with biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction (p < 0.001). LV Apical ballooning was detected only in patients with isolated LV dysfunction (p < 0.001) (Table 1).
Primary outcome
Patients with biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction exhibited mortality rates of 34.5% and 36.7%, respectively. In comparison, lower mortality rates were observed in patients with isolated LV dysfunction, hyperdynamic LV function, and normal cardiac function, with rates of 15.3%, 15.1% and 9.2%, respectively. Kaplan‒Meier curve analysis revealed that patients with biventricular dysfunction (log-rank 43.482, p < 0.001) and those with isolated RV dysfunction (log-rank 53.031, p < 0.001) had significantly higher 30-day mortality rates compared to patients with normal function. In contrast, patients with isolated LV dysfunction (log-rank 2.499, p = 0.114) and hyperdynamic LV function (log-rank 2.421, p = 0.120) showed 30-day mortality rates similar to those with normal function (Table 1; Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier curves for 30-day survival. Normal: normal cardiac function; R↓L↓: biventricular dysfunction; R↑L↓: isolated LV dysfunction; R↓L↑: isolated RV dysfunction; R↑L↑↑: hyperdynamic LV function
Cox regression analysis, adjusted for relevant covariates (age, APACHE II score, mechanical ventilation, PEEP and Pplat levels, vasoactive inotropic score, maximum lactate level, PaO2/FiO2, and ARDS occurrence), confirmed that biventricular dysfunction(hazard ratio [HR] 2.312, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.291–4.139, p = 0.005) and isolated RV dysfunction (HR 2.655, 95% CI 1.455–4.843, p = 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. In contrast, neither isolated LV dysfunction (HR 1.171, 95% CI 0.463–2.960, p = 0.739) nor hyperdynamic LV function (HR 2.153, 95% CI 0.971–4.773, p = 0.059) were independently associated with 30-day mortality (Table 3).
Table 3.
Factors associated with 30-day mortality in all patients
| Hazard Ratio | 95%CI | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | |||
| Age | 1.015 | 1.004–1.025 | 0.006 |
| APACHE II | 1.100 | 1.077–1.124 | < 0.001 |
| PEEP | 1.172 | 1.113–1.235 | < 0.001 |
| Pplat | 1.128 | 1.096–1.160 | < 0.001 |
| VIS | 1.009 | 1.007–1.011 | < 0.001 |
| Maximum lactate in 24 h | 1.136 | 1.095–1.179 | < 0.001 |
| MV | 5.651 | 2.640-12.093 | < 0.001 |
| PaCO2 | 1.044 | 1.019–1.070 | 0.001 |
| PaO2/FiO2 | 0.990 | 0.987–0.992 | < 0.001 |
| ARDS | 5.598 | 3.984–7.864 | < 0.001 |
| Biventricular dysfunction vs. Normal | 4.349 | 2.688–7.034 | < 0.001 |
| Isolated LV dysfunction vs. Normal | 1.731 | 0.865–3.466 | 0.121 |
| Isolated RV dysfunction vs. Normal | 4.852 | 3.028–7.774 | < 0.001 |
| Hyperdynamic LV function vs. Normal | 1.660 | 0.863–3.194 | 0.129 |
| Multivariable analysis | |||
| APACHE II | 1.084 | 1.055–1.113 | < 0.001 |
| Pplat | 1.067 | 1.025–1.111 | 0.002 |
| VIS | 1.003 | 1.001–1.006 | 0.009 |
| ARDS | 2.360 | 1.479–3.768 | < 0.001 |
| Biventricular dysfunction vs. Normal | 2.312 | 1.291–4.139 | 0.005 |
| Isolated LV dysfunction vs. Normal | 1.171 | 0.463–2.960 | 0.739 |
| Isolated RV dysfunction vs. Normal | 2.655 | 1.455–4.843 | 0.001 |
| Hyperdynamic LV function vs. Normal | 2.153 | 0.971–4.773 | 0.059 |
APACHE acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, Pplat plateau pressure, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, PaCO2 partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PaO2/FiO2 partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, LV left ventricular, RV right ventricular, VIS vasoactive inotropic score, MV mechanical ventilation
Secondary outcomes
Patients with biventricular dysfunction, isolated RV dysfunction, and isolated LV dysfunction exhibited significantly fewer ICU-free days compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05) (Table 1; Fig. 3A). Additionally, these patients had a higher prevalence of low CI than the other two groups (p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction showed a greater proportion of systemic venous congestion compared to the other three groups (p < 0.001). LV apical ballooning was predominantly observed in patients with isolated LV dysfunction, while ACP was primarily detected in those with biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction (p < 0.001) (Table 2; Fig. 3B).
Fig. 3.
Secondary outcomes. A Patients with biventricular dysfunction, isolated RV dysfunction, and isolated LV dysfunction exhibited significantly fewer ICU-free days compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05). Normal: normal cardiac function; R↓L↓: biventricular dysfunction; R↑L↓: isolated LV dysfunction; R↓L↑: isolated RV dysfunction; R↑L↑↑: hyperdynamic LV function. B The percentage of systemic congestion, low CI, ACP and LV apical ballooning in each group. CI: cardiac index; ACP: acute cor pulmonale; LV: left ventricular; Normal: normal cardiac function; R↓L↓: biventricular dysfunction; R↑L↓: isolated LV dysfunction; R↓L↑: isolated RV dysfunction; R↑L↑↑: hyperdynamic LV function
Discussion
This study explored the associations between different types of RV and LV dysfunctions and clinical outcome in septic patients. Our findings underscore that both biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction were significant predictors of 30-day mortality. Notably, hyperdynamic LV function also trended toward higher 30-day mortality, though this difference was not statistically significant. However, isolated LV dysfunction was not associated with 30-day mortality.
Although LV and RV function in sepsis has been explored in previous studies, a comprehensive assessment of LV and RV function remains underexplored. This study identified RV function as a key prognostic factor in this patient population, with both biventricular dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction carrying significant prognostic implications. Patients with biventricular dysfunction exhibited the lowest CI and a higher prevalence of systemic venous congestion, which might explain their elevated mortality. Similarly, isolated RV dysfunction also was a predictor of worse clinical outcomes, as these patients had a higher incidence of ARDS and ACP, markers associated with increased mortality [20]. Previous studies have demonstrated that RV dysfunction is related to both short- and long-term outcomes in septic patients [21, 22]. In contrast, one prior study reported that only isolated RV dysfunction, not bivenricular dysfunction, was of prognostic significance [7]. However, this study defined RV dysfunction based on RV enlargement and included only a small subset of patients (41/388) with TAPSE measurements. Our earlier research found that sepsis patients with RV enlargement but preserved RV systolic function were not associated with increased mortality [23].
We observed that more than 10% of the patients exhibited hyperdynamic LV. Notably, the hyperdynamic LV group did not show elevated CRP levels. We speculate that the hyperdynamic state was primarily attributable to reduced preload or afterload. A previous study reported that hyperdynamic LV was independently linked to higher in-hospital mortality [24]. In contrast, our study observed only a non-significant trend toward higher 30-day mortality in patients with hyperdynamic LV function. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in the timing of echocardiography. While our protocol involved echocardiographic assessment within 24 h of ICU admission, the prior study included evaluations conducted within 3 days of admission. Further investigation remains necessary to clarify the prognostic implications of hyperdynamic LV function in sepsis.
We also did not find patients with isolated LV dysfunction was associated with 30-day mortality, despite these patients exhibiting lower CI. Sepsis-related cardiomyopathy often involve both ventricles, but this is not a necessity, particularly in cases without RV afterload increase [5, 25]. Interestingly, patients with isolated LV dysfunction demonstrated elevated CRP levels, suggesting that increased cytokine activity may play a role in this condition. Although we did not directly measure cytokine levels such as IL-6, prior studies have established a strong correlation between CRP and IL-6 in sepsis [26]. CRP is primarily synthesized by heptocytes in response to cytokines, notably IL-6 [27]. Additionally, approximately one-fifth of these patients exhibited LV apical ballooning, a condition typically confined to the LV rather than the both ventricles. This observation aligns with a previous study that identified sepsis as a potential trigger for LV apical ballooning in critically ill patients [19].
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, as a retrospective single-center study, its generalizability may be limited. Validation using data from other centers is recommended to confirm our findings. Second, our study focused exclusively on patients with LV apical ballooning, the most common type of takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Previous research indicates that apical type accounts for approximately 81% of all takotsubo cases [28]. Third, data on inflammatory biomarkers were limited in this study. Fourth, in this observational study, variations in volume status—due to differences in resuscitation strategies or timing of echocardiographic examination— may have influenced cardiac function classification. Future study should include a broader range of biomarkers, such as IL-6, TNF-α, to better elucidate the relationship between inflammation and different types of cardiac dysfunction. Despite these limitations, our study offers valuable insights into the assessment of cardiac dysfunction in sepsis and paves the way for further advancements in the management of these patients.
Conclusions
Patients with biventricular dysfunction or isolated RV dysfunction exhibited significantly higher 30-day mortality compared to those with normal cardiac function. Notably, hyperdynamic LV function also showed a trend toward higher 30-day mortality than normal cardiac function, although this association did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, isolated LV dysfunction was not associated with 30-day mortality.
Supplementary Information
Abbreviations
- LV
Left ventricular
- RV
Right ventricular
- ICU
Intensive care unit
- TTE
Transthoracic echocardiography
- SOFA
Sequential organ failure assessment
- TAPSE
Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion
- R/LVEDA
Right and left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio
- FAC
Fractional area change
- LVOT
Left ventricular outflow tract
- VTI
Velocity-time integral
- LVEF
Left ventricular ejection fraction
- MAPSE
Mitral annular plane systolic excursion
- E
Mitral annular peak velocity
- e’
Tissue Doppler velocity of lateral and medial mitral annuli at early diastole
- IVCD
Inferior vena cava diameter
- SVI
Stroke volume index
- CI
Cardiac index
- HR
Heart rate
- APACHE
Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation
- CVP
Central venous pressure
- ACP
Acute cor pulmonale
- NE
Norepinephrine
- PEEP
Positive end-expiratory pressure
- Pplat
Plateau pressure
- PaCO2
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide
- PaO2/FiO2
Partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio
- CRP
C reactive protein
Authors’ contributions
H.M. Z conceived and designed the study. H. M. Z, Q. Z, X. T. W obtained data and performed the image analysis. H. M. Z, B. J. G, Y. L performed statistical analysis. H. M. Z drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approve the final manuscript. H. M. Z takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.
Funding
Ultrasound specialized research project 2022 by Beijing Critical Care Ultrasound Research Association (2022-CCUSG-A-01).
Data availability
All datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the ethics committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China (Approval No. ZS-2166). Written informed consent for the use of patient’s medical record was was signed by the patients or their surrogates.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, Rhodes A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):75–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the united States. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1167–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Vieillard-Baron A, Caille V, Charron C, Belliard G, Page B, Jardin F. Actual incidence of global left ventricular hypokinesia in adult septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(6):1701–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ehrman RR, Sullivan AN, Favot MJ, et al. Pathophysiology, echocardiographic evaluation, biomarker findings, and prognostic implications of septic cardiomyopathy: a review of the literature. Crit Care. 2018;22:112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pulido JN, Afessa B, Masaki M, et al. Clinical spectrum, frequency, and significance of myocardial dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(7):620–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Geri G, Vignon P, Aubry A, et al. Cardiovascular clusters in septic shock combining clinical and echocardiographic parameters: a post hoc analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(5):657–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Vallabhajosyula S, Kumar M, Pandompatam G, et al. Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock: an 8-year historical cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hollenberg SM, Singer M. Pathophysiology of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(6):424–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhang H, Zhang D, Wang X, et al. Prognostic implication of a novel right ventricular injury score in septic patients. ESC Heart Fail. 2023;10(2):1205–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zaidi A, Knight DS, Augustine DX, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a practical guideline from the British society of echocardiography. Echo Res Pract. 2020;7(1):G19–1941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sanfilippo F, Huang S, Herpain A, et al. The PRICES statement: an ESICM expert consensus on methodology for conducting and reporting critical care echocardiography research studies. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(1):1–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.VanDyck TJ, Pinsky MR. Hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021;27:454–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jardin F, Dubourg O, Bourdarias JP. Echocardiographic pattern of acute Cor pulmonale. Chest. 1997;111(1):209–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Goldstein SA, Kuznetsova T, Lancellotti P, Muraru D, Picard MH, Rietzschel ER, Rudski L, Spencer KT, Tsang W, Voigt JU. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American society of echocardiography and the European association of cardiovascular imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:233–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Beaubien-Souligny W, Rola P, Haycock K, Bouchard J, Lamarche Y, Spiegel R, Denault AY. Quantifying systemic congestion with Point-Of-Care ultrasound: development of the venous excess ultrasound grading system. Ultrasound J. 2020;12:16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Spiegel R, Teeter W, Sullivan S, Tupchong K, Mohammed N, Sutherland M, Leibner E, Rola P, Galvagno SM Jr, Murthi SB. The use of venous doppler to predict adverse kidney events in a general ICU cohort. Crit Care. 2020;24:615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Chockalingam A, Mehra A, Dorairajan S, et al. Acute left ventricular dysfunction in the critically ill. Chest. 2010;138:198–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Park JH, Kang SJ, Song JK, et al. Left ventricular apical ballooning due to severe physical stress in patients admitted to the medical ICU. Chest. 2005;128:296–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mekontso Dessap A, Boissier F, Charron C, et al. Acute Cor pulmonale during protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: prevalence, predictors, and clinical impact. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:862–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lanspa MJ, Cirulis MM, Wiley BM, et al. Right ventricular dysfunction in early Sepsis and septic shock. Chest. 2021;159(3):1055–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Vallabhajosyula S, Shankar A, Vojjini R, et al. Impact of right ventricular dysfunction on Short-term and Long-term mortality in sepsis: A Meta-analysis of 1,373 patients. Chest. 2021;159(6):2254–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Zhang H, Huang W, Zhang Q, et al. Prevalence and prognostic value of various types of right ventricular dysfunction in mechanically ventilated septic patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dugar S, Sato R, Chawla S, et al. Is left ventricular systolic dysfunction associated with increased mortality among patients with Sepsis and septic shock. Chest. 2023;163:1437–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Vieillard-Baron A, Cecconi M. Understanding cardiac failure in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(10):1560–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Oberhoffer M, Karzai W, Meier-Hellmann A, Bögel D, Fassbinder J, Reinhart K. Sensitivity and specificity of various markers of inflammation for the prediction of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 in patients with sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(9):1814–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Vincent JL, Donadello K, Schmit X. Biomarkers in the critically ill patient: C-reactive protein. Crit Care Clin. 2011;27(2):241–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Templin C, Ghadri JR, Diekmann J, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of Takotsubo (Stress) cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:929–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.