Roy, Archana

Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) is recognized as an inflammatory biomarker, often elevated in COVID-19 pneumonia alongside other biomarkers. Understanding its association with severe outcomes and comparing its predictive ability with other biomarkers is crucial for clinical management. Objectives: This retrospective multicenter observational study aimed to investigate the association between PCT levels and adverse outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Additionally, it sought to compare the predictive performance of various biomarkers. Design: The study analyzed data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) registry, comprising COVID-19 patients hospitalized across multiple Mayo Clinic sites between March 2020 and June 2022. Methods: A total of 7851 adult COVID-19 patients were included. Patients were categorized into 6 groups based on the worst WHO ordinal scale. Multivariate models were constructed using peak biomarker levels within 72 hours of admission, adjusted for confounders. Results: Elevated PCT levels were independently associated with increased odds of adverse outcomes, including ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.32, 95%CI 1.27-1.38), IMV requirement (aOR 1.35, 95%CI: 1.28-1.42), and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.30, 95%CI: 1.22-1.37). A 3.48-fold increase in IMV requirement and 3.55 times increase in in-hospital mortality were noted with peak PCT ⩾ 0.25 ng/ml. Similar associations were observed with other biomarkers like NLR (AUC 0.730), CRP, IL-6, LDH (AUC 0.800), and D-dimer (AUC 0.719). Models incorporating NLR, LDH, D-dimer, and PCT demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy, with a combined model exhibiting an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.826 (95%CI 0.803-0.849). Conclusions: Higher PCT levels were significantly linked to worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, emphasizing its potential as a prognostic marker. Biomarker-based predictive models, particularly those including PCT, showed promising utility for risk assessment and clinical decision-making. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings on a larger scale.

Introduction: Sepsis and its associated systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the heart can lead to septic cardiomyopathy. We aim to explore new onset cardiac dysfunction in septic shock patients and its association of right heart dysfunction with hospital outcomes. Hypothesis: Early development of correct ventricular abnormalities due to septic shock may lead to worse hospital outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 102 patients who were hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic between August 2018 and September 2022 with septic shock and had at least one pre-sepsis echo (within one year before admission) and one post-sepsis echo (within seven days of access). Information on patient demographics, comorbidities, echo parameters, and outcomes was collected from our sepsis database and retrospective chart review. Categorical variables were described as percentages and compared by Chi-square test, and continuous variables as medians and compared using an independent sample t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using BlueSky Statistics v10.3.1. Results: Our study included 102 patients with a median age of 68 (55, 78) years, the majority being men (68%) and Caucasians (80%). Between pre- and post-sepsis echos, there was a noticeable decrease in LVEF (60% vs 50.5 %; p=0.002). Moreover, there was an increase in reduced RV function (31.6% vs. 62.6%, p<0.001), reduced LV function (56.5% vs. 85.2%, p=0.048), and RV dilatation (35.8% vs. 51.5%, p=0.03). There was also a noticeable decrease in IVC collapsibility of more than 50% (65.9% vs 22.9%, p<0.001). There was no significance in terms of demographics, comorbidities, and baseline vitals and labs among patients with RV dysfunction and without RV dysfunction except for a lower LVEF (49% vs 62 %, p= 0.004) and decreased >50 % IVC collapsibility (14.5% vs 48%, p=0.005) in RV dysfunction group. We found no differences in hospital mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or mechanical ventilation requirements amongst patients with RV abnormalities in function and size. Conclusions: Our retrospective study shows that abnormalities in RV function and RV size are commonly observed in the initial week of septic shock. However, such RV abnormalities did not translate into worse hospital outcomes.

Abstract Transfusion of ABO-mismatched platelets is common practice. Although a unit of single donor apheresis platelet (SDP) contains as much plasma and passive anti-A or/and anti-B antibodies (allo-agglutinins) as a unit of fresh frozen plasma, ABO- mismatched platelet transfusions are considered safe and hemolytic transfusion reactions have only rarely been reported. We report a case of a 67-year old male, blood group A, with mantle cell lymphoma who received 1 SDP for chemotherapy induced thrombocytopenia. Several prior platelet transfusions had been uneventful. After 150 ml of irradiated, leukoreduced, SDP from blood group O donor had been infused, he developed nausea, light-headiness, chills, and back pain. He became bradycardic and hypotensive. Platelet transfusion was discontinued and intravenous dexamethasone and rapid saline infusion was administered. Later, his hemoglobin dropped from 10.6 to 7.4 g/dl and total serum bilirubin increased by 9 fold. A direct antiglobulin test (DAT) on post-transfusion sample demonstrated 1+ reactivity at room temperature. An elution test performed on the patient’s circulating red blood cells contained anti-A antibodies. These results are consistent with a severe acute hemolytic transfusion reaction. The donor anti-A and anti-B antibodies titers at room temperature and at 37°C were 512 and 2048 with A1 cells and 128 and 256 with B cells, respectively.This case illustrates the rare possibility of hemolytic transfusion reaction occurring as a result of ABO-mismatched platelets from group O donor with high-titer anti-A antibodies. SDP (in contrast to pooled platelets) offers the advantages of reduced risk of infection transmission and alloimmunization by limiting exposure to one donor only. However, it increases the opportunity for hemolytic transfusion reaction to occur if the donor has high-titer antibodies which would have been diluted if pooled platelets were used. As SDP use becomes more widespread, the risk of clinically significant hemolytic reactions is likely to increase, especially in seriously ill patients who tolerate these reactions particularly poorly. Moreover, increasingly, apheresis platelets are being donated by a small group of highly motivated donors, raising the chances of repeated transfusions from the same donors. We propose that the safety of ABO-mismatched platelet transfusions be re-evaluated. Effectiveness (and costs) of potential preventive strategies such as screening all SDP units for high-titer antibodies and/or plasma volume reduction of all mismatched SDP units should be studied.