Next Article in Journal
Use of Maximum Tongue Pressure Values to Examine the Presence of Dysphagia after Extubation and Prevent Aspiration Pneumonia in Elderly Emergency Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Enlarged Abdominal Lymph Node as a Cause of Polyhydramnios in the Course of Congenital Neonatal Leukaemia: A Case Report and Review of the Literature on Foetal Abdominal Tumours with Coexisting Polyhydramnios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 21
10.3390/jcm11216592
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cardiac Troponin I Reveals Diagnostic and Prognostic Superiority to Aminoterminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Sepsis and Septic Shock

by
Jan Forner
1,2,†,
Tobias Schupp
1,2,*,†,
Kathrin Weidner
1,2,
Jonas Rusnak
1,2,
Schanas Jawhar
1,2,
Floriana Dulatahu
1,2,
Lea Marie Brück
1,2,
Michael Behnes
1,2,
Ursula Hoffmann
1,2,
Thomas Bertsch
3,
Maximilian Kittel
4 and
Ibrahim Akin
1,2
1
First Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 61867 Mannheim, Germany
2
European Center for AngioScience (ECAS) and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
3
Institute of Clinical Chemistry, Laboratory Medicine and Transfusion Medicine, Nuremberg General Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, 90419 Nuremberg, Germany
4
Institute for Clinical Chemistry, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(21), 6592; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216592
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 21 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 7 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Intensive Care)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Data regarding the prognostic value of cardiac biomarkers in patients suffering from sepsis or septic shock is scarce. Studies investigating the prognostic role of cardiac biomarkers in patients with sepsis and septic shock were commonly published prior to the sepsis-3 criteria and were often not restricted to septic patients only, too. This study investigated the diagnostic and prognostic value of the aminoterminal pro-B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-pro BNP) and cardiac troponin I (cTNI) in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Consecutive patients with sepsis and septic shock were included from 2019 to 2021. Blood samples were retrieved from the day of disease onset (i.e., day 1), day 2 and 3. Firstly, the diagnostic value of the NT-pro BNP and cTNI to diagnose sepsis or septic shock was tested. Secondly, the prognostic value of the NT-pro BNP and cTNI was examined with regard to the 30-day all-cause mortality. The statistical analyses included univariable t-tests, Spearman’s correlations, C-statistics, Kaplan–Meier analyses and Cox proportional regression analyses. A total of 162 patients were included prospectively, of which 57% had a sepsis and 43% a septic shock. The overall rate of all-cause mortality at 30 days was 53%. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.658 on day 1 and 0.885 on day 3, cTNI expressed a better diagnostic value than NT-pro BNP, especially on day 3 (ΔAUCd3 = 0.404; p = 0.022). Furthermore, cTNI displayed a moderate but slightly better prognostic value than NT-pro BNP on all examined days (AUC for cTNI, d1 = 0.635; 95% CI 0.541–0.729; p = 0.007 vs. AUC for NT-pro BNP, d1 = 0.582; 95% CI 0.477–0.687; p = 0.132). In conclusion, cTNI was a reliable diagnostic parameter for the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock, as well as a reliable prognostic tool with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality in patients suffering from sepsis and septic shock.

1. Introduction

Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response as a consequence of an infection [1]. Since the publication of the so-called “sepsis-3” criteria in 2016, sepsis-related organ dysfunction is diagnosed by using the “Sequential Organ Failure Assessment” (SOFA) score [1,2]. Within the SOFA score, the cardiovascular system is only assessed by using mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the need for catecholamine infusions, whereas the use of cardiac biomarkers is not included in the decision-making of sepsis. However, myocardial dysfunction was shown to be common in septic patients, and patients with septic shock frequently show reversible left ventricular dysfunction [3,4].
Natriuretic peptides are released as a consequence of increased myocardial wall stress and volume status. The secretion of natriuretic peptides, such as the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), leads to relaxation of the vasomotor tone and inhibition of sympathetic activity, ultimately resulting in increases in natriuresis and diuresis [5,6]. The aminoterminal fragment (NT-pro-BNP) is biologically inert; however, both BNP and NT-pro-BNP are considered important biomarkers for the diagnosis-making and risk stratification in patients with heart failure (HF) [7,8]. The cardiac troponin complex—consisting of troponin C (cTNC), troponin T (cTNT) and troponin I (cTNI)—is involved in the regulation of cardiac muscle contraction. The regulatory role of cTNI consists of the inhibition of the adenosine 5′-triphosphatase (ATPase) activity of the actomyosin complex and the modulation of cross-bridge formation and cardiac muscle contraction [9,10]. In particular, cTNT and cTNI are biomarkers of myocardial injury and are commonly released during myocardial necrosis in the presence of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) [11], which further promotes adverse cardiac remodeling [12]. Both NT-pro BNP and cTNI were shown to be increased in patients with non-cardiac diseases, including pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal dysfunction and sepsis [13].
Studies investigating the prognostic role of NT-pro BNP and cTNI were commonly published prior to the “sepsis-3” criteria and predominantly limited to a small study population [14,15,16]. Hence, the present study aimed to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic value of NT-pro BNP and cTNI in patients suffering from sepsis and septic shock.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Patients, Design and Data Collection

The present study prospectively included all consecutive patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock on admission to the internal ICU at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Germany, from June 2019 to January 2021. All relevant clinical data related to the index event was documented by using the electronic hospital information system, as well as the IntelliSpace Critical Care and anesthesia information system (ICCA, Philips, Philips GmbH Market DACH, Hamburg, Germany) implemented at the ICU, organizing patient data such as admission documents, vital signs, laboratory values, treatment data and consult notes.
The presence of sepsis and septic shock, as well as important laboratory data, sepsis-related scores, hemodynamic measurements, and ventilation parameters were assessed upon disease onset (i.e., day 1), day 2 and day 3.
Moreover, baseline characteristics, prior medical history, length of index hospital stay, pharmacological therapies and data derived from imaging diagnostics were documented. The documentation of source data was performed by intensivists and ICU nurses during routine clinical care.
The present study was derived from an analysis of the “Mannheim Registry for Sepsis and Septic Shock” (MARSS-registry) [17], which represents a prospective single-center registry including all consecutive patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock at the ICU for internal medicine of the University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Germany (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05231720). The registry was established according to the principles of the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the medical ethics committee II of the Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria, Study Endpoints

For the present study, all consecutive patients with sepsis and septic shock were included. Patients without evidence of the NT-pro BNP and the cTNI on sepsis day 1 were excluded from the present study. Furthermore, patients without measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were excluded.
The diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock was determined according to the “Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock” (i.e., sepsis-3) [1]. Accordingly, sepsis was defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction, caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. Organ dysfunction was defined as an increase of ≥2 in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Septic shock was defined as persistent hypotension, despite adequate volume resuscitation, requiring vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mm Hg and a serum lactate ≥ 2 mmol/L [1]. Values of LVEF were retrieved from standardized transthoracic echocardiographic examinations commonly performed during ICU hospitalization to assess realistic LVEF values beyond the acute phase of septic cardiomyopathy. LVEF measurements were performed in two- and four-chamber apical projections during routine clinical care and calculated by using the Simpson’s biplane method, according to the European guidelines [18].
All-cause mortality at 30 days was documented by using our electronic hospital information system and by directly contacting state resident registration offices (‘bureau of mortality statistics’). The identification of patients was verified by place of name, surname, day of birth, and registered living address. No patient was lost to follow-up with regard to all-cause mortality at 30 days.

2.3. Measurement of NT-Pro BNP and cTNI

First, cTNI was measured with the SIEMENS Atellica Solution CH 930™. The lowest detection limit of the assay was 0.015 ng/mL, with a linearity range from 0.025 to 25 ng/mL. The 99th percentile, which was measured from a healthy reference population, was 0.045 ng/mL, with a coefficient of variation of 10% [19,20]. NT-pro BNP determinations were performed as a direct chemiluminescence sandwich immunoassay on the Atellica Solution IM (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). The linear quantification range of the assay for serum and plasma is 35–35,000 pg/mL (4.13–4130 pmol/L). The clinical decision threshold for the NT-pro BNP assay to separate healthy from sick patients is 125 pg/mL for patients aged <75 years and 450 pg/mL for patients aged ≥75 years.

2.4. Statistical Methods

Quantitative data is presented as the median and interquartile range (IQR). Comparisons were applied by using Student’s t-test for normally distributed data or the Mann–Whitney U test for nonparametric data. Deviations from a Gaussian distribution were tested by using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Qualitative data are presented as absolute and relative frequencies and were compared by using the Chi-square test. Spearman’s rank correlation for nonparametric data was used to examine the association of the NT-pro BNP and the cTNI with medical and laboratory parameters measured on day 1.

2.4.1. Diagnostic Performance of NT-Pro BNP and cTNI

Within the entire study cohort, C-statistics were applied with the calculation of the receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and the corresponding area under the curves (AUCs) to assess the ability of NT-pro BNP and cTNI to discriminate between patients with sepsis and septic shock (diagnostic performance) on days 1, 2 and 3. AUCs for diagnostic performance were compared by the method of Hanley et al. [21].

2.4.2. Prognostic Performance of NT-Pro BNP and cTNI

Within the entire study cohort, C-statistics were applied on days 1, 2 and 3, with calculation of ROCs and the corresponding AUCs for 30-day all-cause mortality (prognostic performance). AUCs for prognostic performance were compared by the method of Hanley et al. [21]. Kaplan–Meier analyses according to NT-pro BNP and cTNI were performed within the entire study cohort, as well as stratified for LVEF. Univariable hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated together with their respective 95% confidence intervals. Thereafter, multivariable Cox regression models were developed by using the “forward selection” option, where only statistically significant variables (p < 0.05) were included and analyzed simultaneously.
Results of all statistical tests were considered significant for p ≤ 0.05. SPSS (Version 25, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and GraphPad Prism (Version 9, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) were used for statistics.

3. Results

3.1. Study Population

From a total of 361 consecutive patients with sepsis or septic shock, 189 patients with no measurement of the NT-pro BNP and cTNI on day 1 were excluded. Additionally, 10 patients with no evidence of the LVEF were excluded. The final study cohort comprised 162 patients, of which 57% presented with sepsis and 43% with septic shock on day 1 (Figure 1, flowchart).
The median NT-pro BNP level on day 1 was 2794 pg/mL (IQR 913–7978 pg/mL), and the median cTNI level was 0.14 µg/mL (IQR 0.03–0.92 µg/mL). As depicted in Table 1, the median age was 70 years, and most patients were males (65%). When stratified for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock (Table 1, middle and right panel), the rates of coronary artery disease (39% vs. 45%; p = 0.427), congestive heart failure (19% vs. 30%; p = 0.103) and atrial fibrillation (27% vs. 36%; p = 0.203) were equally distributed. Patients with sepsis presented more often with LVEF 45–54% (38% vs. 13%; p = 0.001), whereas a LVEF 35–44% was more common in patients with septic shock (16% vs. 29%; p = 0.049). Patients with LVEF ≥ 55% (28% vs. 29%; p = 0.886) and LVEF < 35% (18% vs. 29%) were equally common in both groups. Moreover, patients with septic shock presented with higher rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (5% vs. 30%; p = 0.001).
As illustrated in Table 2, a pulmonary infectious focus was the most common source of infection in both groups (57% vs. 58%), followed by an unknown focus of infection (20% vs. 26%). With regard to sepsis-related scores, the “Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation” (DIC) score (median 1 vs. 2; p = 0.001), the “acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II” (APACHE II) score (median 20 vs. 27; p = 0.001), the acute physiology score (median 13 vs. 22; p = 0.001) and the SOFA score (median 9 vs. 13; p = 0.001) were higher in patients with septic shock. Furthermore, patients presenting with septic shock required the use of catecholamines (79% vs. 99%; p = 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (52% vs. 68%; p = 0.048) more frequently than septic patients. Patients with septic shock revealed increased serum lactate levels (median 1.4 mmol/L vs. 3.5 mmol/L; p = 0.001) and higher international normalized ratios (INR) (median 1.1 vs. 1.3; p = 0.001). The cTNI levels (median 0.08 vs. 0.37 µg/L; p = 0.002) were significantly higher in patients admitted with septic shock, whereas the NT-pro BNP levels did not significantly differ between both groups (median 2256 vs. 4500 pg/mL; p = 0.085). Finally, all-cause mortality at 30 days occurred more often in patients with septic shock on admission (42% vs. 59%; p = 0.028) (Table 2).

3.2. Association of cTNI and NT-Pro BNP with Clinical and Laboratory Data

Table 3 illustrates the correlation of cTNI and NT-pro BNP on day 1 with clinical and laboratory data. The cTNI showed a significant, yet negligible, correlation with procalcitonin (r = 0.209; p = 0.029), as well as sepsis-related scores, such as the SOFA score (r = 0.201; p = 0.020), acute physiology score (r = 0.239; p = 0.006) and APACHE II score (r = 0.220; p = 0.011). Furthermore, cTNI displayed a low positive correlation with the LVEF (r = 0.307; p = 0.001). The correlation between cTNI and NT-pro BNP was moderately positive (r = 0.528; p = 0.001). The NT-pro BNP presented a negligible correlation with age (r = 0.222; p = 0.018), platelet count (r = −0.225; p = 0.016), procalcitonin (r = 0.247; p = 0.012), PaO2/FiO2 ratio (r = 0.202; p = 0.037), creatinine (r = 0.291; p = 0.002) and MAP (r = −0.199; p = 0.034). The correlation between NT-pro BNP and sepsis-related scores, such as the SOFA score (r = 0.226; p = 0.015), acute physiology score (r = 0.192; p = 0.040) and APACHE II score (r = 0.281; p = 0.002), was significant but negligible as well. Moreover, the NT-pro BNP depicted a low negative correlation with mechanical ventilation days (r = −0.342; p = 0.001) and intensive-care days (r = −0.304; p = 0.001), while the correlation with the LVEF was low positive (r = 0.439; p = 0.001).

3.3. Diagnostic Performance of cTNI and NT-Pro BNP

The distributions of the cTNI and NT-pro BNP during the initial 3 days of sepsis and septic shock are presented in Figure 2. The cTNI levels were significantly higher in patients with septic shock as compared to septic patients on day 1 (median 0.08 vs. 0.37 µg/L; p = 0.002) and day 3 (median 0.56 vs. 10.10 µg/L; p = 0.001), whereas the NT-pro BNP levels did not differ significantly between both groups on all evaluated ICU treatment days (p > 0.05).
With an AUC of 0.658 on day 1, the cTNI was able to discriminate between patients with sepsis and septic shock, whereas the NT-pro BNP displayed a poor diagnostic value (AUC 0.595). Especially on day 3, the cTNI revealed a good diagnostic value, which was superior to the diagnostic value of the NT-pro BNP (AUC 0.885 vs. 0.481; ΔAUC = 0.404; p-value for the AUC difference = 0.022) (Table 4).

3.4. Prognostic Performance of cTNI and NT-Pro BNP

Overall, the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality was 49%. During the first 3 days of ICU hospitalization, cTNI levels were higher among 30-day non-survivors as compared to survivors on day 1 (median 0.09 vs. 0.31 µg/L; p = 0.007) and day 2 (median 0.59 vs. 3.93 µg/L; p = 0.021), but not on day 3 (median 0.57 vs. 4.34 µg/L; p = 0.200). In contrast, NT-pro BNP levels did not significantly differ between non-survivors and survivors on all evaluated ICU treatment days (p > 0.05) (Figure 3).
The prognostic AUCs of cTNI were statistically significant during the first two days of ICU treatment (AUC 0.635–0.687). Of note, prognostic AUCs for NT-pro BNP were not statistically significant on the evaluated treatment days (Table 5).
At 30 days, all-cause mortality occurred in 56% of the patients with cTNI levels above the median and in 39% of the patients with cTNI levels below or equal to the median. Accordingly, the risk of all-cause mortality was increased in patients with elevated cTNI levels (log rank p = 0.033; HR = 1.703; 95% CI 1.030–2.814; p = 0.038) (Figure 4, left panel). Specifically, an increased all-cause mortality was observed in patients with higher cTNI levels presenting with a LVEF < 35% (41% vs. 75%, log rank p = 0.023; HR = 2.778; 95% CI 1.084–7.122; p = 0.033), but not in patients with a LVEF ≥ 35% (40% vs. 48%, log rank p = 0.388; HR = 1.293; 95% CI 0.714–2.341; p = 0.397) (Figure 4, middle and right panel). In line, NT-pro BNP levels above the median were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality (42% vs. 60%, log rank p = 0.027; HR = 1.769; 95% CI 1.048–2.986; p = 0.033). However, this was no longer observed after stratification for LVEF < 35% (69% vs. 67%, log rank p = 0.735; HR = 0.853; 95% CI 0.328–2.217; p = 0.745) and LVEF ≥ 35% (42% vs. 50%, log rank p = 0.309; HR = 1.367; 95% CI 0.739–2.526; p = 0.319) (Figure 5).

3.5. Multivariable Cox Regression Models

After multivariable adjustment, high cTNI levels (HR = 2.251; CI 1.017–4.981; p = 0.045) and a severely impaired LVEF (HR = 4.048; CI 1.475–11.304; p = 0.007) were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, while high NT-pro BNP levels (HR = 1.364; CI 0.528–3.521 p = 0.522) were not (Table 6). Furthermore, concomitant malignancies (HR = 3.439; p = 0.008) displayed an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality.

3.6. NT-Pro BNP Adjusted for eGFR

Finally, the diagnostic and prognostic impacts of the eGFR adjusted NT-pro BNP levels were re-evaluated. It was demonstrated that the diagnostic (AUC 0.517 vs. 0.595) and prognostic (AUC 0.579 vs. 0.582) values did not differ when comparing the adjusted to the unadjusted NT-pro BNP levels (not demonstrated).

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the diagnostic and prognostic value of NT-pro BNP and cTNI in a well-defined and selective group of internistic patients presenting with sepsis and septic shock. This study suggests that the cTNI is a reliable diagnostic parameter to distinguish between patients with sepsis or septic shock. Moreover, it indicates that the diagnostic performance of the cTNI is superior to the NT-pro BNP. Furthermore, cTNI displayed a moderate prognostic value with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality. Both cTNI and NT-pro BNP levels above their respective median were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. The prognostic impact of high cTNI levels was still evident in patients admitted with LVEF < 35%.
The exact underlying pathophysiology of elevated cardiac biomarkers (such as NT-pro BNP and cTNI) in patients with sepsis or septic shock remains unclear. In the past, various molecules, for example interleukin-6 (IL-6) or tumor necrosis factor-a, have been proposed as agents contributing to septic cardiomyopathy [22,23]. Furthermore, cardiac biomarkers may be increased as a result of increased wall stress, myocardial oxygen demand–supply mismatch (i.e., type 2 myocardial infarction), drug toxicity or renal failure [24]. It has also been suggested, that myocardial depressant molecules increase the permeability of myocytes, thereby leaking cTNI into the bloodstream [14]. Ultimately, the pathomechanism appears to be different to thrombus-associated myocardial damage, as implied by a study of Altmann et al. from 2010, finding no differences in coagulation parameters analyzed with rotational thromboelastometry in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis and septic shock presenting with and without elevated cTNI levels [25]. Thus, in septic patients, troponin elevation may occur in the absence of myocardial ischemia. This is confirmed by studies suggesting reversible myocardial dysfunction in sepsis survivors, as well as three studies that found flow-limiting CAD (assessed by stress echocardiography, coronary angiography or postmortem examination) in only 4% to 6% of patients with sepsis or septic shock [14,25,26]. However, no guidelines for the treatment of patients with elevated cTNI levels are available [27].
Although the prognostic impact of cTNT and cTNI was investigated within various clinical studies, suggesting increased risk of in-hospital and ICU mortality in patients with elevated troponin levels, most studies are limited to a retrospective study design and a non-consecutive inclusion of patients [28,29]. For instance, in a retrospective observational cohort study, Wen et al. demonstrated a reliable prognostic performance of the cTNT for the prediction of 28-day mortality with a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 61.7% for the optimal cutoff value (i.e., 0.039 ng/mL) in patients with sepsis and septic shock admitted to an ICU. Further on, cTNT, in combination with the red-cell-distribution width, was able to improve the prognostic performance of the SOFA score in this study [30]. Those results are contrasted by the randomized “Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial” (VASST), which included 121 patients treated with vasopressin or norepinephrine, and for which no association of cTNI or cTNT with the risk of 28-day mortality was found [15]. NT-pro BNP was demonstrated to be associated with an increased risk of short-term all-cause mortality within multiple clinical studies. For instance, in a prospective multicenter study, also including patients treated at our clinic between 2001 and 2002, Brückmann et al. suggested that septic patients with NT-pro BNP levels > 1400 pmol/L were at a 3.9-fold increased risk of death as compared to patients with lower NT-pro BNP levels [31]. In line with this, BNP was found to be superior to the SOFA score in predicting 90-day all-cause mortality in 259 septic patients with no evidence of concomitant heart failure [32]. The prognostic value of both BNP and cTNI was comprehensively investigated in a study comprising 233 patients with sepsis and concomitant cancer. The BNP was an independent predictor of 28-day all-cause mortality, but cTNI was not. Interestingly, BNP on sepsis day 3 (cutoff 681.5 pg/mL) revealed a sensitivity of 91.5% and a specificity of 88.7% [33]. Furthermore, the dynamic changes of NT-pro BNP during the first week after trauma were investigated within a prospective study including 60 major trauma patients. The study demonstrated that NT-pro BNP levels were higher in non-survivors than in survivors and increased during the week in non-survivors [34]. A study by Andersson et al. from 2019 examined the high-sensitivity cTNT (hs-cTNT) as an independent predictor of 30-day mortality in 856 patients with cardiac arrest, sepsis, heart failure and respiratory failure. They found the hs-cTNT to display a reliable prognostic value in septic patients, while hs-cTNT showed poor prognostic ability in patients with cardiac arrest, heart failure and respiratory failure [35]. Those findings are in line with a study by de Groot et al., revealing hs-cTNT as an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in 292 patients. However, this study was not restricted to septic patients [36]. The present study, consecutively including patients treated at an internistic ICU with sepsis or septic shock according to the sepsis-3 criteria, suggests a poor prognostic accuracy of NT-pro BNP, whereas cTNI revealed a moderate predictive value with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality.
Only a few data are available that focus on the prognostic value of cardiac biomarkers while also controlling for cardiac function. The association of cTNI and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction was investigated in 46 patients with septic shock undergoing transesophageal echocardiography, and a strong association between LV dysfunction and cTNI positivity was demonstrated [16]. In line with this, Mehta et al. found lower LVEF, higher incidence of regional wall motion abnormalities and higher mortality in patients with elevated cTNI levels in 37 patients presenting with septic shock [37]. Moreover, a study by Hai et al. from 2021 found an association between high levels of hs-cTNT and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), as measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography, in 116 patients with sepsis or septic shock [38]. Those results are also in line with a monocentric prospective study from 2022, finding high-sensitivity cTNI (hs-cTNI) and NT-pro BNP to be related to a risk for LVSD in 124 septic patients [39]. Correspondingly, the prognostic impact of myocardial dysfunction, as assessed by fractional area contraction (FAC), was examined within a small study including 34 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Increased BNP levels on day 2 were observed in patients with FAC < 50% and were associated with increased risk of ICU mortality [3]. Within the present study, both cTNI and NT-pro BNP correlated with the LVEF in patients with sepsis or septic shock. However, when stratified for LVEF < 35%, only high cTNI levels were associated with 30-day all-cause mortality, whereas high NT-pro BNP levels were not associated with the prognostic outcome.
This study has several limitations. Due to the single-center observational study design, results may be influenced by measured and unmeasured confounding factors, although we adjusted for potential confounders using multivariable Cox regression. On day 2 and 3 of follow-up, cTNI and NT-pro BNP levels were not available for every patient, which may have accounted for selection bias. Furthermore, follow-up cTNI and NT-pro BNP levels on ICU hospitalization day 5 to 10 were only available in a minor part of the study population and, therefore, were not taken into account within the present study. With regard to the diagnostic value of NT-pro BNP and cTNI, no control group with healthy individuals was considered. Data on the extent of concomitant CAD, as well as PCI-related data, were not assessed for the present study. Finally, the effects of NT-pro BNP and cTNI on long-term outcomes were beyond the scope of the present study.
In conclusion, the present study identifies cTNI superior compared to NT-pro BNP with regard to the diagnosis of septic shock. In line, both increasing cTNI and NT-pro BNP levels were associated with increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. The prognostic impact of high cTNI levels was still evident in patients admitted with LVEF < 35%.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S., M.B. and I.A.; methodology, J.F., T.S., K.W., J.R. and M.K.; software, L.M.B., S.J., T.S. and M.B.; validation, T.S., M.B., T.B., K.W., J.R. and J.F.; formal analysis, T.S., M.K., U.H., L.M.B., S.J., F.D. and J.F.; investigation, T.S., M.B. and I.A.; resources, M.B. and I.A.; data curation, F.D., T.B., M.K., K.W., J.R., U.H. and J.F.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A. and T.S.; writing—review and editing, T.S., M.B., I.A., K.W., J.R.; visualization, T.S.; supervision, M.B. and I.A.; project administration, T.S., M.B. and I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Mannheim (approval No. 2019-694N).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cecconi, M.; Evans, L.; Levy, M.; Rhodes, A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet 2018, 392, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Charpentier, J.; Luyt, C.E.; Fulla, Y.; Vinsonneau, C.; Cariou, A.; Grabar, S.; Dhainaut, J.F.; Mira, J.P.; Chiche, J.D. Brain natriuretic peptide: A marker of myocardial dysfunction and prognosis during severe sepsis. Crit. Care Med. 2004, 32, 660–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Price, S.; Anning, P.B.; Mitchell, J.A.; Evans, T.W. Myocardial dysfunction in sepsis: Mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Eur. Heart J. 1999, 20, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Okamoto, R.; Ali, Y.; Hashizume, R.; Suzuki, N.; Ito, M. BNP as a Major Player in the Heart-Kidney Connection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Potter, L.R.; Yoder, A.R.; Flora, D.R.; Antos, L.K.; Dickey, D.M. Natriuretic peptides: Their structures, receptors, physiologic functions and therapeutic applications. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2009, 191, 341–366. [Google Scholar]
  7. Maisel, A.S.; Duran, J.M.; Wettersten, N. Natriuretic Peptides in Heart Failure: Atrial and B-type Natriuretic Peptides. Heart Fail. Clin. 2018, 14, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farnsworth, C.W.; Bailey, A.L.; Jaffe, A.S.; Scott, M.G. Diagnostic concordance between NT-proBNP and BNP for suspected heart failure. Clin. Biochem. 2018, 59, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sutanto, H.; Lyon, A.; Lumens, J.; Schotten, U.; Dobrev, D.; Heijman, J. Cardiomyocyte calcium handling in health and disease: Insights from in vitro and in silico studies. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2020, 157, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Katrukha, I.A. Human cardiac troponin complex. Structure and functions. Biochemistry 2013, 78, 1447–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chaulin, A.M. Cardiac Troponins Metabolism: From Biochemical Mechanisms to Clinical Practice (Literature Review). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shomanova, Z.; Ohnewein, B.; Schernthaner, C.; Höfer, K.; Pogoda, C.A.; Frommeyer, G.; Wernly, B.; Brandt, M.C.; Dieplinger, A.M.; Reinecke, H.; et al. Classic and Novel Biomarkers as Potential Predictors of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Burke, M.A.; Cotts, W.G. Interpretation of B-type natriuretic peptide in cardiac disease and other comorbid conditions. Heart Fail. Rev. 2007, 12, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ammann, P.; Fehr, T.; Minder, E.I.; Günter, C.; Bertel, O. Elevation of troponin I in sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2001, 27, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mehta, S.; Granton, J.; Gordon, A.C.; Cook, D.J.; Lapinsky, S.; Newton, G.; Bandayrel, K.; Little, A.; Siau, C.; Ayers, D.; et al. Cardiac ischemia in patients with septic shock randomized to vasopressin or norepinephrine. Crit. Care 2013, 17, R117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. ver Elst, K.M.; Spapen, H.D.; Nguyen, D.N.; Garbar, C.; Huyghens, L.P.; Gorus, F.K. Cardiac troponins I and T are biological markers of left ventricular dysfunction in septic shock. Clin. Chem. 2000, 46, 650–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schupp, T.; Weidner, K.; Rusnak, J.; Jawhar, S.; Forner, J.; Dulatahu, F.; Brück, L.M.; Hoffmann, U.; Bertsch, T.; Weiß, C.; et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of the AST/ALT ratio in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2022. epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Galderisi, M.; Cosyns, B.; Edvardsen, T.; Cardim, N.; Delgado, V.; Di Salvo, G.; Donal, E.; Sade, L.E.; Ernande, L.; Garbi, M.; et al. Standardization of adult transthoracic echocardiography reporting in agreement with recent chamber quantification, diastolic function, and heart valve disease recommendations: An expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 18, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar]
  19. Apple, F.S.; Collinson, P.O. Analytical characteristics of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays. Clin. Chem. 2012, 58, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Behnes, M.; Espeter, F.; Hoffmann, U.; Lang, S.; Brueckmann, M.; Akin, I.; Borggrefe, M.; Bertsch, T.; Weiss, C.; Neumaier, M.; et al. Diagnostic and Long-Term Prognostic Value of Sensitive Troponin I in Symptomatic Patients Suspected of Acute Heart Failure. Clin. Lab. 2015, 61, 1737–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hanley, J.A.; McNeil, B.J. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983, 148, 839–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Beesley, S.J.; Weber, G.; Sarge, T.; Nikravan, S.; Grissom, C.K.; Lanspa, M.J.; Shahul, S.; Brown, S.M. Septic Cardio-myopathy. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Barre, M.; Behnes, M.; Hamed, S.; Pauly, D.; Lepiorz, D.; Lang, S.; Akin, I.; Borggrefe, M.; Bertsch, T.; Hoffmann, U. Revisiting the prognostic value of monocyte chemotactic protein 1 and interleukin-6 in the sepsis-3 era. J. Crit. Care 2018, 43, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Babuin, L.; Jaffe, A.S. Troponin: The biomarker of choice for the detection of cardiac injury. CMAJ 2005, 173, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Altmann, D.R.; Korte, W.; Maeder, M.T.; Fehr, T.; Haager, P.; Rickli, H.; Kleger, G.R.; Rodriguez, R.; Ammann, P. Elevated cardiac troponin I in sepsis and septic shock: No evidence for thrombus associated myocardial necrosis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ammann, P.; Maggiorini, M.; Bertel, O.; Haenseler, E.; Joller-Jemelka, H.I.; Oechslin, E.; Minder, E.I.; Rickli, H.; Fehr, T. Troponin as a risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients without acute coronary syndromes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003, 41, 2004–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Agewall, S.; Giannitsis, E.; Jernberg, T.; Katus, H. Troponin elevation in coronary vs. non-coronary disease. Eur. Heart J. 2011, 32, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vasile, V.C.; Chai, H.S.; Abdeldayem, D.; Afessa, B.; Jaffe, A.S. Elevated cardiac troponin T levels in critically ill patients with sepsis. Am. J. Med. 2013, 126, 1114–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kalla, C.; Raveh, D.; Algur, N.; Rudensky, B.; Yinnon, A.M.; Balkin, J. Incidence and significance of a positive troponin test in bacteremic patients without acute coronary syndrome. Am. J. Med. 2008, 121, 909–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wen, K.; Du, H.; Tang, B.; **ong, B.; Zhang, A.; Wang, P. Complete Blood Count and Myocardial Markers Combination with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Can Effectively Predict the Mortality in Sepsis: A Derivation and Validation Study. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2022, 15, 3265–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brueckmann, M.; Huhle, G.; Lang, S.; Haase, K.K.; Bertsch, T.; Weiss, C.; Kaden, J.J.; Putensen, C.; Borggrefe, M.; Hoffmann, U. Prognostic value of plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in patients with severe sepsis. Circulation 2005, 112, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Khoury, J.; Arow, M.; Elias, A.; Makhoul, B.F.; Berger, G.; Kaplan, M.; Mashiach, T.; Ismael-Badarneh, R.; Aronson, D.; Azzam, Z.S. The prognostic value of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in non-cardiac patients with sepsis, ultra-long follow-up. J. Crit. Care 2017, 42, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, Y.; Leng, J.; Tian, X.; Wang, H.; Hao, C. Brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac troponin I for prediction of the prognosis in cancer patients with sepsis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021, 21, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qian, A.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, G. Dynamic detection of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide helps to predict the outcome of patients with major trauma. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2015, 41, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Andersson, P.; Frigyesi, A. High-sensitivity troponin T is an important independent predictor in addition to the Simplified Acute Physiology Score for short-term ICU mortality, particularly in patients with sepsis. J. Crit. Care 2019, 53, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. de Groot, B.; Verdoorn, R.C.; Lameijer, J.; van der Velden, J. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T is an independent predictor of inhospital mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection: A prospective observational derivation study. Emerg. Med. J. 2014, 31, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mehta, N.J.; Khan, I.A.; Gupta, V.; Jani, K.; Gowda, R.M.; Smith, P.R. Cardiac troponin I predicts myocardial dysfunction and adverse outcome in septic shock. Int. J. Cardiol. 2004, 95, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hai, P.D.; Binh, N.T.; Tot, N.H.; Hung, H.M.; Hoa, L.T.V.; Hien, N.V.Q.; Son, P.N. Diagnostic Value of High-Sensitivity Troponin T for Subclinical Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Patients with Sepsis. Cardiol. Res. Pract. 2021, 2021, 8897738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yu, J.; Zheng, R.; Yang, P.; Wang, D. Construction of a predictive model and prognosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with sepsis based on the diagnosis using left ventricular global longitudinal strain. J. Intensive Care 2022, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 11 06592 g001 550
Figure 1. Study population.
Figure 1. Study population.
Jcm 11 06592 g001
Jcm 11 06592 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of cTNI and NT-pro BNP among patients with sepsis and septic shock during the first 3 days of sepsis.
Figure 2. Distribution of cTNI and NT-pro BNP among patients with sepsis and septic shock during the first 3 days of sepsis.
Jcm 11 06592 g002
Jcm 11 06592 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of cTNI and NT-pro BNP among patients on days 1, 2 and 3, comparing 30-day survivors and non-survivors.
Figure 3. Distribution of cTNI and NT-pro BNP among patients on days 1, 2 and 3, comparing 30-day survivors and non-survivors.
Jcm 11 06592 g003
Jcm 11 06592 g004 550
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves for cTNI according to all-cause mortality at 30 days within the entire study cohort (left), in patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (middle) and LVEF < 35% (right).
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves for cTNI according to all-cause mortality at 30 days within the entire study cohort (left), in patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (middle) and LVEF < 35% (right).
Jcm 11 06592 g004
Jcm 11 06592 g005 550
Figure 5. Kaplan–Meier curves for NT-pro BNP according to all-cause mortality at 30 days within the entire study cohort (left), in patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (middle) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (right).
Figure 5. Kaplan–Meier curves for NT-pro BNP according to all-cause mortality at 30 days within the entire study cohort (left), in patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (middle) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (right).
Jcm 11 06592 g005
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
All Patients
(n = 162)		Sepsis
(n = 93)		Septic Shock
(n = 69)		p-Value
Age, median; (IQR)70(61–78)70(60–78)70(60–80)0.966
Male sex, n (%)106(65.4)61(65.6)45(65.2)0.961
Body mass index (kg/m2), median; (IQR)26.67(24.22–30.86)26.58(23.77–29.89)26.73(24.69–32.65)0.410
Entry criteria, median; (IQR)
Body temperature (°C)36.8(36–37.6)36.9(36.1–37.4)36.6(35.6–37.9)0.381
Heart rate (bpm)102(87–115)96(85–111)108(90–123)0.027
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)111(96–129)114(99–133)108(88–125)0.010
Respiratory rate (breaths/minute)22(18–26)22(18–26)21(18–26)0.563
Cardiovascular risk factors, n (%)
Arterial hypertension113(69.8)65(69.9)48(69.6)0.964
Diabetes mellitus60(37.0)35(37.6)25(36.2)0.855
Hyperlipidemia51(31.5)24(25.8)27(39.1)0.071
Smoking44(27.3)27(29.3)17(24.6)0.507
Prior medical history, n (%)
Coronary artery disease67(41.4)36(38.7)31(44.9)0.427
Congestive heart failure39(24.1)18(19.4)21(30.4)0.103
Atrial fibrillation50(30.9)25(26.9)25(36.2)0.203
Chronic kidney disease32(19.8)22(23.7)10(14.5)0.147
COPD32(19.8)18(19.4)14(20.3)0.882
Liver cirrhosis7(4.3)4(4.3)3(4.3)0.988
Malignancy48(29.6)26(28.0)22(31.9)0.588
Immunosuppression19(12.1)13(14.8)6(8.7)0.247
LVEF at admission, n (%)
≥55%46(28.4)26(28.0)20(29.0)0.886
54–4544(27.2)35(37.6)9(13.0)0.001
44–35%35(21.6)15(16.1)20(29.0)0.049
<35%37(22.8)17(18.3)20(29.0)0.108
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, n (%)26(16.0)5(5.4)21(30.4)0.001
In-hospital 7(4.3)2(2.2)5(7.2)0.001
Out-of-hospital19(11.7)3(3.2)16(23.2)
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IQR, interquartile range; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction. Level of significance between sepsis and septic shock p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 2. Sepsis-related data, follow-up data and endpoints.
Table 2. Sepsis-related data, follow-up data and endpoints.
All Patients
(n = 162)		Sepsis
(n = 93)		Septic Shock
(n = 69)		p-Value
Sepsis scores, median; (IQR)
DIC1(1–2)1 (0–2)2(1–3)0.001
Acute physiology score17(12–23)13(8–19)22(15–25)0.001
APACHE II24(18–30)20(14–27)27(21–33)0.001
SOFA10(8–13)9(6–12)13(10–15)0.001
ISARIC-4C-Mortality score15(12–16)14(12–16)15(12–16)0.615
Infection focus, n (%)
Pulmonary93(57.4)53(57.0)40(58.0)0.216
Urogenital19(11.7)15(16.1)4(5.8)
Intra-abdominal12(7.4)6(6.5)6(8.7)
Wound1(0.6)0(0.0)1(1.4)
Unknown37(22.8)19(20.4)18(26.1)
SARS-CoV-2 infection, n (%)24(14.8)19(20.4)5(7.2)0.020
Multiple organ support during ICU
Vasopressor support norepinephrine, n (%)141(87.0)73(78.5)68(98.6)0.001
Dose of norepinephrine (µg; median (IQR))51.7(5.8–158.3)25.0(1.8–104.3)105.4(24.3–281.5)0.001
Dialysis during hospitalization, n (%)75(46.3)31(33.2)44(63.8)0.001
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, n (%)14(8.6)9(9.7)5(7.2)0.586
Respiratory status
Mechanical ventilation, n (%)96(59.3)49(52.3)47(68.1)0.048
Invasive mechanical ventilation, n (%)73(45.1)29(31.2)44(63.8)0.001
Duration of mechanical ventilation (days; mean, (range))5(1–15)5(1–16)3(1–15)0.715
PaO2/FiO2 ratio (median; (IQR))191(129–285)192(129–297)191(127–278)0.866
PaO2 (median; (IQR))91(72–123)87(69–117)97(80–126)0.081
Liver function
Acute liver failure, n (%)15(9.3)6(6.5)9(13.0)0.152
Renal function, median; (IQR)
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)1.9(1.28–3.03)1.69(1.09–2.85)2.16(1.56–3.49)0.010
GFR (mL/min)31.49(19.2–51.88)34.93(21.7–62.01)26.87(16.2–40.48)0.008
Urine output (mL)790(179–1493)900(415–1650)510(40–1270)0.022
Dialysis (days)0(0–4)0(0–4)2(0–6)0.001
Baseline laboratory values, median; (IQR)
pH 7.37(7.28–7.42)7.39(7.31–7.44)7.33(7.22–7.40)0.001
Lactate (mmol/L)2.1(1.2–3.9)1.4(1.0–2.2)3.5(2.3–8.6)0.001
Serum sodium (mmol/L)139(135–143)138(135–142)140(135–145)0.181
Serum potassium (mmol/L)4.2(3.7–4.7)4.1(3.6–4.6)4.2(3.8–4.8)0.289
Hemoglobin (g/dL)10.8(9.0–12.5)10.7(9.0–12.9)10.8(9.0–12.3)0.691
WBC (106/mL)13.13(8.45–17.76)13.06(8.21–17.58)13.97(8.92–19.62)0.657
Platelets (106/mL)201(132–281)212(136–280)197(119–297)0.649
INR1.18(1.08–1.32)1.13(1.06–1.23)1.28(1.12–1.64)0.001
Fibrinogen (g/L)4.40(2.80–5.86)4.93(3.40–6.34)3.67(2.53–5.61)0.074
D-dimer (µg/L)4.13(1.50–15.25)2.68(1.28–10.34)11.59(4.04–30.54)0.001
AST (U/L)61(35–147)50(29–83)85(46–247)0.003
ALT (U/L)33(18–97)30(18–87)39(17–125)0.352
Bilirubin (mg/dL)0.85(0.50–1.36)0.74(0.49–1.31)0.97(0.53–1.54)0.224
Troponin I (µg/L)0.14(0.03–0.92)0.08(0.02–0.37)0.37(0.05–1.73)0.002
NT-pro BNP (pg/mL)2794(913–7978)2256(668–7053)4500(1033–12,742)0.085
Procalcitonin (ng/mL)2.44(0.57–17.85)1.65(0.50–9.78)5.66(0.74–26.68)0.042
CRP (mg/L)144(76–225)147(87–226)137(47–221)0.204
Primary endpoint
All-cause mortality at 30 days, n (%)80(49.4)39(41.9)41(59.4)0.028
Follow up data, n (%)
ICU time (days; median; (IQR))7(3–17)8(3–18)5(3–16)0.098
Death ICU, n (%)75(46.3)33(35.5)42(60.9)0.001
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; APACHE II, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CRP, C-reactive Protein; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; ICU, intensive-care unit; INR, international normalized ratio; IQR, interquartile range; NT-pro BNP, aminoterminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2; SOFA, sepsis-related organ failure assessment score; WBC, white blood cells. Level of significance between sepsis and septic shock p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 3. Univariate correlations of TNI and BNP with laboratory and clinical parameters in all patients (n = 162) on day 1.
Table 3. Univariate correlations of TNI and BNP with laboratory and clinical parameters in all patients (n = 162) on day 1.
cTNINT-Pro BNP
rp-Valuerp-Value
Age0.0920.2930.2220.018
BMI0.0000.997−0.1370.155
Hb (g/dL)−0.0450.607−0.0800.399
WBC (106/mL)−0.0500.571−0.1590.091
Platelets (106/mL)−0.1600.067−0.2250.016
Albumin (g/L)−0.0640.520−0.1700.112
Bilirubin (mg/dL)0.0720.4930.1850.088
cTNI (µg/L)--0.5280.001
NT-pro BNP (pg/mL)0.5280.001--
LVEF0.3070.0010.4390.001
CRP (mg/L)−0.1410.1100.0810.403
PCT (ng/mL)0.2090.0290.2470.012
PaO2/FiO2 ratio0.1150.2010.2020.037
Mechanical ventilation days−0.0530.544−0.3420.001
Creatinine (mg/dL)0.1540.0780.2910.002
Renal replacement days0.0530.545−0.0210.824
SOFA score0.2010.0200.2260.015
Acute Physiology score0.2390.0060.1920.040
APACHE II score0.2200.0110.2810.002
MAP (mmHg)0.0130.884−0.1990.034
Catecholamine use0.1330.127−0.0740.432
Intensive-care days−0.0800.358−0.3040.001
APACHE II, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II; BMI, body mass index; CRP, C-reactive protein; cTNI, cardiac troponin I; Hb, hemoglobin; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MAP, mean arterial pressure; NT-pro BNP, aminoterminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; PCT, procalcitonin; SOFA, sepsis-related organ failure assessment; WBC, white blood cell count. Level of significance p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 4. C-statistic for biomarkers at days 1, 2 and 3 to discriminate between patients with sepsis and septic shock.
Table 4. C-statistic for biomarkers at days 1, 2 and 3 to discriminate between patients with sepsis and septic shock.
cTNINT-Pro BNPp-Value for AUC
Difference
Day 10.658 (0.564–0.753); p = 0.0020.595 (0.488–0.702); p = 0.0850.389
Day 1: Controls n = 93 patients with sepsis
Day 20.547 (0.382–0.712); p = 0.5920.517 (0.284–0.750); p = 0.8880.842
Day 2: Controls n = 103 patients with sepsis
Day 30.885 (0.770–1.000); p = 0.0010.481 (0.162–0.800); p = 0.9030.022
Day 3: Controls n = 100 patients with sepsis
Level of significance p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 5. C-statistic for biomarkers at days 1, 2 and 3 to discriminate between non-survivors and survivors.
Table 5. C-statistic for biomarkers at days 1, 2 and 3 to discriminate between non-survivors and survivors.
cTNINT-Pro BNPp-Value for AUC Difference
Day 10.635 (0.541–0.729); p = 0.0070.582 (0.477–0.687); p = 0.1320.462
Day 20.687 (0.540–0.834); p = 0.0210.537 (0.317–0.757); p = 0.7350.255
Day 30.633 (0.436–0.830); p = 0.2000.525 (0.315–0.735); p = 0.8130.455
Level of significance p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Table
Table 6. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses within the entire study cohort.
Table 6. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses within the entire study cohort.
VariablesUnivariableMultivariable
HR95% CIp-ValueHR95% CIp-Value
Age1.0130.995–1.0300.1510.9940.966–1.0230.688
Sodium (mmol/L)1.0270.998–1.0570.0661.0230.950–1.1020.548
Potassium (mmol/L)0.9890.736–1.3290.9440.6690.354–1.2660.217
pH0.1010.015–0.6860.0190.0670.002–2.7930.155
WBC (106/mL)0.9780.954–1.0020.0690.9820.940–1.0260.424
Platelets (106/mL)0.9980.996–1.0000.0420.9980.995–1.0010.179
Malignancy1.2550.786–2.0050.3413.4391.389–8.5110.008
Immunosuppression0.5590.243–1.2870.1720.5200.106–2.5400.419
Respiratory rate > 22/min0.7930.511–1.2310.3010.6960.306–1.5820.387
Heart rate > 100 bpm0.9230.595–1.4310.7210.5490.236–1.2760.163
Systolic BP < 100 mmHg0.8510.520–1.3920.5201.4570.619–3.4290.389
Creatinine (mg/dL)1.0040.896–1.1260.9401.0350.847–1.2660.735
LVEF < 35%1.2390.747–2.0550.4074.0841.475–11.3040.007
cTNI > 0.136 µg/L1.7031.030–2.8140.0382.2511.017–4.9810.045
NT-pro BNP > 2793.5 pg/mL1.7691.048–2.9860.0331.3640.528–3.5210.522
cTNI, cardiac Troponin I; GCS, Glasgow coma scale; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-pro BNP, aminoterminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; Systolic BP, systolic blood pressure; WBC, white blood cell count. Level of significance p < 0.05. Bold type indicates statistical significance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Forner, J.; Schupp, T.; Weidner, K.; Rusnak, J.; Jawhar, S.; Dulatahu, F.; Brück, L.M.; Behnes, M.; Hoffmann, U.; Bertsch, T.; et al. Cardiac Troponin I Reveals Diagnostic and Prognostic Superiority to Aminoterminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Sepsis and Septic Shock. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6592. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216592

AMA Style

Forner J, Schupp T, Weidner K, Rusnak J, Jawhar S, Dulatahu F, Brück LM, Behnes M, Hoffmann U, Bertsch T, et al. Cardiac Troponin I Reveals Diagnostic and Prognostic Superiority to Aminoterminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Sepsis and Septic Shock. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(21):6592. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216592

Chicago/Turabian Style

Forner, Jan, Tobias Schupp, Kathrin Weidner, Jonas Rusnak, Schanas Jawhar, Floriana Dulatahu, Lea Marie Brück, Michael Behnes, Ursula Hoffmann, Thomas Bertsch, and et al. 2022. "Cardiac Troponin I Reveals Diagnostic and Prognostic Superiority to Aminoterminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Sepsis and Septic Shock" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 21: 6592. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216592

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop