Carotid Cavernous Fistula: A Case Study and Review

Iaswarya Ganapathiraju, OMS-IV¹

Douglas T Summerfield, MD²

Melissa M Summerfield, MD²

¹Des Moines University College of Osteopathic Medicine

Des Moines, IA USA

²Mercy Medical Center North Iowa and North Iowa Eye Clinic

Mason City, IA USA

Abstract

Carotid cavernous fistulas are rare complications of craniofacial trauma, resulting in abnormal connections between the arterial and venous systems of the cranium. The diagnosis of carotid cavernous fistulas and other injuries as a result of trauma can be confounded by the traumatized patient’s inability to communicate their symptoms to their physician. The following case study demonstrates the importance of a thorough physical exam in caring for such patients and serves to remind physicians to have a low threshold for consultation when managing numerous injuries following trauma.

Introduction

Carotid cavernous fistulas (CCFs) are aberrant connections between the carotid arterial system and the cavernous sinus, which form as complications of craniofacial trauma, or are congenital or spontaneous in nature (1). They occur in up to 3.8% of patients with basilar skull fractures and are more common with middle fossa fracture (2). Prompt diagnosis and treatment of CCF is necessary as approximately 20 – 30% of carotid cavernous fistulas lead to vision loss if not addressed appropriately (3)/\The following is a case study of a patient who presented with multiple traumatic injuries including CCF with subsequent discussion of the typical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of direct CCF.  

Case Presentation

A 64-year-old woman with a therapeutic INR on Coumadin for atrial fibrillation sustained a fall down a flight of stairs. She was found unresponsive the next day by her relatives and was subsequently brought to the emergency department for evaluation. A maxillofacial CT showed a nondisplaced right maxillary wall fracture and nondisplaced zygomatic arch fracture, as well as a subtle inferotemporal orbital fracture, none of which was determined to require immediate treatment by the otolaryngology service. Further imaging included a CT of the head which revealed a large subdural hematoma, a superotemporal hematoma, and subfalcine herniation. She was taken to the OR for emergent craniotomy and evacuation of the hematoma before transfer to the critical care unit. In the CCU, she remained intubated and sedated but her condition improved until extubation on hospital day 3. She continued to have swelling surrounding both eyes during this time, but physical exam showed pupils which were equal, round, and reactive to light.

On day 6 of her stay, the patient was noted to have waxing and waning confusion and slightly increased oxygen requirement. Thus, she was re-intubated and sedated for “agitation” and “hypoxic respiratory failure.” Physical exam on the next day was notable for pupillary anisocoria with the right pupil at 1 mm diameter and left at 2.5 mm. There was a poor pupillary light reaction bilaterally. Neurology was consulted and recommended repeat imaging and EEG. Repeat CT and MRI of the brain showed no evidence of herniation, and EEG was negative for seizure-like activity. The anisocoria was thought to be from mass effect of the temporal lobe on cranial nerve III. The patient’s condition continued to deteriorate; physical exam elicited grimace to painful stimuli and the patient was able to open her eyes but did not track movement or follow commands. She was subsequently noted to have a left orbit that became harder to compress with ballottement test compared to the right, so Ophthalmology was consulted.

An ophthalmologic exam showed extensive chemosis of the left eye compared to the right with conjunctival hemorrhage in bilateral eyes (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Ophthalmologic exam revealed chemosis, exophthalmos, and a mid-dilated, fixed pupil of left eye compared to right.

Ocular tonometry revealed a pressure of 14 mmHg in the right eye and 53 mmHg in the left. There was a mid-dilated, fixed pupil on the left. The differential at this point included traumatic acute angle closure glaucoma versus a retroorbital process. The patient was started on timolol, pilocarpine, and dorzolamide eye drops for intraocular pressure control. An orbital CT was obtained, which showed an engorged superior ophthalmic vein on the left with a new 4 mm proptosis of the left eye (Figure 2) when compared to previous imaging.

Figure 2. A: CT scan showed proptosis of 4 mm of left eye compared to right eye. B: Enlarged left ophthalmic vein also noted on CT scan (arrow).

This raised concern for traumatic carotid cavernous fistula. A CTA obtained the following morning confirmed this suspicion (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A: Reconstructed coronal CT coronal angiogram showing enlarged left cavernous sinus, confirming diagnosis of carotid cavernous fistula. B-E: Static coronal images from CT angiogram with major arteries labeled. F: Video of CT angiogram.

The patient was transferred to an outside facility for surgical management, which consisted of angiography and embolization via coiling of her CCF.

Discussion

Carotid cavernous fistulas are abnormal connections that form between the cavernous sinus and the internal or external carotid arteries, or branches of the internal or external carotid arteries. They are divided into direct and indirect variants per Barrow classification (Table 1, Figure 4).

ICA = Internal carotid artery ECA = External carotid artery

Figure 4. A: The normal eye: superior ophthalmic vein draining into cavernous sinus and internal and external carotid arteries traversing the cavernous sinus. B: Barrow Classifications for types of carotid cavernous fistulas: Type A: direct connection between internal carotid artery and cavernous sinus. Type B: connection between dural branches of internal carotid artery and cavernous sinus. Type C: connection between dural branches of external carotid artery and cavernous sinus. Type D: connection between dural branches of both internal carotid artery and external carotid artery and the cavernous sinus.

Types B through D are commonly termed ‘indirect’ or ‘dural’ fistulas. These can develop spontaneously as a result of hypertension and are the more common presentation of CCF. More specifically, type B is a connection between the dural branches of the ICA and the cavernous sinus, type C is a connection between the dural branches of the external carotid artery (ECA) and the cavernous sinus, and type D connects the dural supply of both the ICA and ECA and the cavernous sinus (1). Type A, or a ‘direct’ CCF, is a connection between the intracavernous internal carotid artery (ICA) and the cavernous sinus. Direct CCF is a rare ocular complication that forms most commonly as a result of craniofacial trauma, but can also be due to aneurysmal rupture or spontaneous development. This is also the most dramatic presentation of CCF and was the case in our patient.

Prompt identification and management of CCF is necessary to prevent associated morbidity and mortality. The presentation of CCF depends mainly on the drainage of the fistula. Anterior-drainage of fistulas through the superior ophthalmic vein produces symptoms of exophthalmos, proptosis, acute chemosis or swelling/edema of conjunctiva, and headache, all of which are more common in direct CCFs. The backup of drainage can result in a secondary angle closure with extremely high intraocular pressure. Posterior-drainage of fistulas into the superior and inferior petrosal sinuses tend to lack the aforementioned features of orbital congestion, but can produce painful cranial neuropathy of the trigeminal, facial, or ocular motor nerves. Failure to identify and appropriately treat posterior-draining fistulas can lead to eventual reversal of flow and development of anterior drainage (4).

The signs of CCF are not visible on neuroimaging at a patient’s presentation and generally develop over the first week a patient is admitted.  Clinical signs which may prompt further investigation and repeat imaging include chemosis, increasing exophthalmos, pain, and increased intraocular pressure. Often, the tools for checking intraocular pressure are not available in an ICU setting. In the absence of signs of a ruptured globe, an intensivist could palpate the orbit over a closed eye (as occurred in this case). If there is asymmetry in resistance to palpation, this should incite an ophthalmologic consult to consider a retro-orbital process.

Repeat neuroimaging is likely to be done in these cases, but it is important to order the right test. Radiologic signs of CCF include proptosis and asymmetric enlargement of a cavernous sinus or superior ophthalmic vein and would be noted on an orbital or maxillofacial CT. A head CT might miss these signs, so it is important to obtain imaging dedicated to examining the retro-orbital space. To confirm the diagnosis of CCF, one must then obtain a CT angiogram, which will show the aberrant connections between the intracranial vessels. Upon confirming a diagnosis of CCF, the preferred mode of management is endovascular obliteration using an arterial or venous approach as it has been shown to be safe and effective, and confers long-term cure in most cases (5).

A previous review of 16 cases of carotid cavernous fistulas treated with transarterial embolization with detachable balloon show satisfactory results, defined as resolution of CCF without residual disability, in 11 cases and resolution but with residual disability in 5 cases. The most common of the disabilities in these cases was vision impairment, as seen in 4 out of the 5 cases. In addition, 14 out of the 16 cases resolved with preserved internal carotid artery flow (1). As a result, transarterial embolization with detachable balloon (TAEDB) has been established as the preferred method of treatment for carotid cavernous fistulas (6). Other options for treatment include neurosurgery and stereotactic radiosurgery when endovascular approach is not feasible.

Our patient presented with several traumatic injuries following a fall down a flight of stairs and was unable to contribute to history-taking. Detection and treatment of the CCF that she later developed was complicated by several factors. The true exophthalmos of the affected eye was partially masked by the fact that she had an inferotemporal orbital fracture of the opposite eye, which was incorrectly thought to be enophthalmic. Additionally, her altered mental status and subsequent re-intubation limited her ability to vocalize the pain which would have been present in her affected eye due to tremendously increased intraocular pressure.

From a critical care physician perspective, part of the key to her diagnosis was her re-intubation. The patient developed severe agitation requiring sedation without other more typical reasons for intubation such as hypoxia, tachypnea, or dyssynchronous breathing. We suspect this agitation was likely secondary to pain from the rapidly increasing pressure in her affected eye which became symptomatic just prior to her worsening mental status. Her physical exam was ultimately crucial to the detection of her CCF, specifically chemosis, exophthalmos, and increased intraocular pressure in the affected eye. These signs led to the subsequent ophthalmologic consultation, imaging, and eventually the diagnosis of CCF.

An important lesson learned from this patient’s management is having a low threshold for consultation when the clinical picture does not match diagnostic workup. In our case, the patient’s clinical condition changed but repeat workup including EEG and MRI of the head was negative. Previous imaging had revealed right-sided facial fractures, yet her new findings, including increased resistance to palpation of the orbit and chemosis, were largely left-sided. In situations when the cause of a patient’s deteriorating condition is unclear and there is incongruity between the physical exam and diagnostic workup, it is imperative to obtain further consultation. In our case, the ophthalmic exam gave the clues for further workup and the ultimate diagnosis.

In conclusion, this patient’s case is a good study in the classic presentation of direct CCF in association with craniofacial trauma, and also illuminates the difficulty in detection of orbital injuries in a trauma patient who cannot vocalize the symptoms they are experiencing. The lesson learned from her presentation is to have a low threshold for ophthalmologic consultation for unexplained changes in ophthalmic condition and discrepancies between clinical presentation and diagnostic findings.

References 

1. Barrow DL, Spector RH, Braun IF, Landman JA, Tindall SC, Tindall GT. Classification and treatment of spontaneous carotid-cavernous sinus fistulas. J Neurosurg. 1985 Feb;62(2):248-56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L, Wusi Q, Gang S, Xuesheng Z. Traumatic carotid cavernous fistula accompanying basilar skull fracture: a study on the incidence of traumatic carotid cavernous fistula in the patients with basilar skull fracture and the prognostic analysis about traumatic carotid cavernous fistula. J Trauma. 2007 Nov;63(5):1014-20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Doran M. Carotid-Cavernous Fistulas: Prompt Diagnosis Improves Treatment. American Academy of Ophthalmology. https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/carotid-cavernous-fistulas-prompt-diagnosis-improv. Published March 18, 2016. Accessed July 11, 2017.
4. Miller NR. Diagnosis and management of dural carotid-cavernous sinus fistula. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;23(5):E13. [PubMed]
5. Gupta AK, Purkayastha S, Krishnamoorthy T, Bodhey NK, Kapilamoorthy TR, Kesavadas C, Thomas B. Endovascular treatment of direct carotid cavernous fistulae: a pictorial review. Neuroradiology. 2006 Nov;48(11):831-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Lewis AI, Tomsick TA, Tew JM Jr, Lawless MA. Long-term results in direct carotid-cavernous fistulas after treatment with detachable balloons. J Neurosurg. 1996 Mar;84(3):400-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Ganapathiraju I, Summerfield DT, Summerfield MM. Carotid cavernous fistula: a case study and review. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017:15(1):32-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc083-17 PDF 

July 2017 Critical Care Case of the Month

Robert A. Raschke, MD

Banner University Medical Center Phoenix

Phoenix, AZ USA

History of Present Illness

A 62-year-old man was brought to the Emergency Department with an altered mental status after a neighbor found him unresponsive. Medications the paramedics found in his home were cyclobenzaprine, duloxetine, gabapentin, levothyroxine, ibuprofen, and tramadol.

Past Medical History, Social History and Family History

He had a past medical history of neck and back pain and hypothyroidism. He lived alone. There was a history of a C3-4 anterior cervical discectomy in 2010. Other history including family history was unobtainable.

Physical Examination

• Vital Signs: HR 61 beats/min, BP 86/50 mm Hg, RR 8 breaths/min, T 32.2º C
• General: arousable but did not answer questions. He had multiple tattoos. No needle track marks are identified.
• HEENT: pupils were small but reacted to light.
• Lungs: clear to auscultation.
• Heart: regular rhythm without murmur.
• Abdomen: soft without organomegaly or masses.
• Neurology: he moved all 4 extremities but minimally. Plantar reflexes were downgoing.

Which of the following should be done immediately? (Click on the correct answer to proceed to the second of six pages)

1. Administer naloxone
2. CT scan of the head
3. Obtain a blood glucose
4. 1 and 3
5. All of the above

Cite as: Raschke RA. July 2017 critical care case of the month. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;15(1):7-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc081-17 PDF

High-Sensitivity Troponin I and the Risk of Flow Limiting Coronary Artery Disease in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS)

Ali Abdul Jabbar, MD ^1,3,4

Omar Mufti, MD¹

Sayf Altabaqchali, MD RPVI⁴

Chowdhury Ahsan, MD PhD²

Mohanad Hasan, MD²

Ronald Markert, PhD¹

Bryan White, MD¹

George Broderick, MD¹

¹Cardiology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio.

²Cardiology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada.

³Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Toledo Health Science Campus, Toledo, Ohio.

⁴Department of Cardiology, Ochnser Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Abstract

Background: In acute coronary syndrome, elevated troponins are associated with worse clinical outcomes. We examined the relationship between the level of troponin elevation and the presence of a flow-limiting lesion for patients with no history of coronary disease admitted with NSTE-ACS.

Methods: From January of 2010 until April of 2013, 561 patients received coronary angiography for new-onset NSTE-ACS. The Mann-Whitney Test, chi-square test, and Spearman correlation were used to examine relationships. Inferences were made at the 0.05 level of significance. The independent samples t test and the chi square test were used to identify predictors of LV systolic dysfunction- LVSD.

Results: The 430 patients with a flow-limiting coronary lesions had a higher troponin I level than the 131 patients without obstructive coronary disease (5.69 ng/ml vs. 2.85 ng/ml, p=0.002). Further, within troponin categories, those in the greater than 5.0 ng/ml group were more likely to have angiographically significant CAD than those in the less than 0.5 ng/ml group (p=0.012). Elevated troponins were also associated with increased thrombus burden, worse systolic function, higher complexity of the lesions, and worse post intervention TIMI flow. Cardiac troponin >5ng/ml [odds ratio=2.13 (95%CI=1.22 to 3.70) p=0.008] and DM [odds ratio=1.74 (95%CI=1.02 to 2.97) p=0.042] were independent predictors of LVSD. Advanced LM disease and age were marginally significant.

Conclusion: The degree of cardiac troponin I elevation should be incorporated into the risk stratification models of NSTE-ACS to promptly triage high-risk patients to early invasive strategies and tailored anticoagulant therapy to reduce troponin elevation and improve myocardial perfusion.

Background

Cardiac troponin is the main biomarker of myocardial ischemia. In acute coronary syndrome, elevated troponin levels are associated with complex obstructive coronary anatomy and impaired myocardial tissue perfusion. Elevated troponins can identify high-risk patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), who may benefit from early invasive management. However, the degree of troponin elevation has not been incorporated in risk stratification models for NSTE-ACS. To triage patients for conservative versus invasive management strategies, we need to define the significance of the magnitude of troponin elevation following NSTE-ACS (1).

NSTE-ACS is the most common form of acute coronary syndrome. Troponin elevation signifies a delayed presentation in ST elevation MI not so for NSTE-ACS. The determination of ischemic injury timing becomes more challenging when NSTE-ACS patient present with variable levels of troponin elevation.

Thus, we examined the relationship between troponin levels and the extent of coronary disease and myocardial dysfunction, as assessed by coronary angiography, in a subset of patients with no history of coronary disease admitted with NSTE-ACS.

Methods

Study design

This is a retrospective study of a cohort admitted to a university-affiliated teaching hospital with highly specialized cardiovascular care over a period of 40 months. The data for this study were obtained from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) database and electronic chart review of study participants.

Serum cardiac troponin levels were measured using a high-sensitivity enzyme-linked immune-absorbent assay kit (VITROS® Troponin I ES Assay, © Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Johnson & Johnson -Hong Kong- Ltd. 2003-2014). A level greater than 0.033 ng/ml is considered above the reference range and represents a positive test value. The highest troponin I level prior to coronary angiography was used in the analyses.

Selection of study participants

The study investigated the association of cardiac troponin I levels and the presence of a flow-limiting coronary arterial lesion; a flow-limiting lesion was defined as an angiographically significant coronary lesion warranting percutaneous and/or surgical revascularization. The study only included patients with new-onset (de novo) NSTE-ACS. Patients with a history of coronary artery disease, heart failure, and cardiac bypass were excluded.

Study Objectives and Data Analysis

In addition to determining the association between cardiac troponin I levels and the presence of flow-limiting coronary artery disease, the study also examined the relationship between cardiac troponin I levels and various other factors, including vascular anatomy, lesion complexity, success of percutaneous intervention (based on the post-intervention Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction - TIMI - study grading system of the coronary blood flow), and incidence of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD), defined by an ejection fraction of less than 40% on left ventriculogram, in de-novo NSTE-ACS patients.

Means and standard deviations are reported for continuous variables, and counts and percents for categorical variables. The independent samples Mann-Whitney Test (two groups), Kruskal-Wallis Test (three groups), one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Least Significance Difference post hoc test, chi square test, and Spearman correlation were used to examine relationships. Inferences were made at the 0.05 level of significance with no corrections for multiple comparisons. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if troponin is an independent risk factor for LVSD. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

Results

Baseline characteristics

From January 2010 through April 2013, 561 patients received coronary angiography for new onset NSTE-ACS. Of this total, 485 (86.5%) had left ventricular functional assessment at the time of cardiac catheterization. All patients were managed invasively.

Patients were divided into three groups according to the degree of troponin I elevation (mild <0.5 ng/ml [n = 167], moderate 0.5-5 ng/ml [n = 263], and high >5 ng/ml [n = 131]).  Table 1 shows that age differed among the three groups (p = 0.008): the moderate group was older than the mild group (mean age = 66.3±13.9 vs. 62.2±12.5) but not the high groups (64.1±13.3).  

Table 1. Characteristics of troponin groups.

Abbreviations - GFR: glomerular filtration rate; PCI: percutaneous coronary artery intervention; IABP: intra-aortic balloon pump; UH: unfractionated heparin; LMWH: low molecular weight heparin

^a The moderate group was older than the mild group (mean age = 66.3±13.9 vs. 62.2±12.5) but not the high group (64.1±13.3).

^bPatients were more likely to be Caucasian as troponin categories increased (66.5% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 78.2% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 81.5% for the >5.0 ng/ml group) and less likely to be African American as troponin categories increased (32.3% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 21.0% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 17.7% for the >5.0 ng/ml group); p value for chi square test excludes Asians and Hispanics due to low counts.

^cThe moderate and high groups had a higher euroscore than the mild group (mean euroscore = 5.44±3.3 and 5.98±6.1 vs. 4.38±2.8).

^dPatients were more likely to receive unfractionated heparin as troponin categories increased (63.4% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 69.7% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 84.2% for the >5.0 ng/ml group).

Patients were more likely to be Caucasian as troponin categories increased (66.5% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 78.2% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 81.5% for the >5.0 ng/ml group) and less likely to be African American as troponin categories increased (32.3% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 21.0% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 17.7% for the >5.0 ng/ml group).

The moderate and high groups had a higher euro-score than the mild group (mean euro-score = 5.44±3.3 and 5.98±6.1 vs. 4.38±2.8 p = 0.003). Patients were more likely to have been treated with unfractionated heparin as troponin levels increased (63.4% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 69.7% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 84.2% for the >5.0 ng/ml group (p = 0.01).

Primary outcomes

Patients with flow-limiting coronary lesions (n = 430) had higher mean troponin I levels than patients without obstructive coronary disease (n = 131) [5.69±12.57 ng/ml vs. 2.85±5.76 ng/ml, p = 0.002]. More importantly, the proportion of patients with angiographically significant CAD increased as troponin levels increased (70.7% for the <0.5 ng/ml group, 77.2% for the 0.5-5 ng/ml group, 83.2% for the >5.0 ng/ml group (p = 0.038) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Troponin groups and the presence of flow-limiting CAD.

Secondary outcomes

Elevated troponin levels were associated with increased thrombus burden (8.34±15.44 ng/ml for patients with intracoronary thrombus vs 5.29±13.11 ng/dl for those without thrombotic lesions, p = 0.001), worse systolic function (6.62+9.77 ng/dl for those with LVEF <40% compared to 4.42+8.70 ng/dl for those with preserved LV function, p=0.003), higher complexity of the lesions (patients with high - type C – lesions, per AHA/ACC classification, had mean troponin level of 8.38±17.71 ng/ml vs 3.44±7.7 ng/ml for those with non-high - type C - lesions, p < 0.001), and worse TIMI flow (patients with TIMI grade 0 flow post-intervention had mean troponin of 49.1±71.99 ng/ml vs 5.16±10.41 ng/ml for those with TIMI grade 3 flow, p = 0.017) post intervention.

Patients with LVSD were more likely to be older, have diabetes (DM), have more advanced left main coronary disease, and have cardiac troponin levels greater than 5 ng/ml. When the statistically significant predictors for LVSD (p<0.05) from the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model of analysis, cardiac troponin levels > 5ng/ml [odds ratio = 2.13 (95%CI = 1.22 to 3.70) p = .008] and DM [odds ratio = 1.74 (95%CI = 1.02 to 2.97) p = .042] were found to be independent predictors for LVSD (Table 2). Age and left main coronary disease almost reached statistical significance.

Table 2. Independent predictors of LVSD.

Discussion

The classic definition of myocardial infarction (MI) by the World Health Organization (WHO) is based on symptoms, electrocardiographic abnormalities, and elevated cardiac enzymes. However, over the past decade the Global MI Task Force has integrated new elements to the definition of MI based on the mechanisms of myocardial injury. Obstructive coronary lesion is the most clinically relevant form of injury and results in troponin release (2,3).

Routine detection of troponin levels using high sensitivity assays that yield a continuous gradient in apparently normal subjects makes it difficult to differentiate myocardial necrosis related to plaque rupture in ACS patients from necrosis in non-ACS patients. Newby et al. discussed the impact of improved test sensitivity on the interpretation of cardiac troponin and emphasized the value of pretest probability when interpreting troponin elevation (3).

The major findings of the present study were: 1) obstructive coronary lesions (flow-limiting) related myocardial injury resulted in greater troponin elevation when compared to other etiologies of myocardial injury, 2) in the context of a flow-limiting coronary artery disease, the degree of troponin elevation implies high-risk features for invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients related to their vascular anatomy, lesion complexity, and the eventual success of percutaneous intervention, and 3) regardless of the mechanism of troponin release, a high level of troponin I was an independent predictor of LVSD in de novo NSTE-ACS patient population.

Troponin I and the presence of hemodynamically significant (flow-limiting) coronary artery disease

Troponin I is independently associated with in-hospital mortality in NSTE-ACS patients. Antman et al. reported that short-term mortality increases with rising levels of cardiac troponin I, and the highest increment in mortality was observed when levels are > 5 ng/ml (4). Additionally, Kleiman et al. (5) demonstrated that invasive management could improve mortality risk in a NSTE-ACS subset of patients with positive cardiac biomarkers.

Interestingly, analyses from the ACTION Registry (NCDR published data) indicate that single vessel flow-limiting coronary artery disease was the most common finding identified by cardiac angiography, and that percutaneous coronary artery intervention was the most common mode of treatment in invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients (6,7). We previously reported that the likelihood of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease in invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients when the troponin level is more than 5 ng/ml was significantly higher than that in individuals with a lower troponin level (8).

Concern about elevated troponin was reflected in the guidelines that recommend incorporating risk stratification models (TIMI risk score, Grace risk score, or PURSUIT risk model) to the management strategy for NSTE-ACS patients (9). However, none of these models has integrated the additive value of the degree of troponin elevation in their risk-score calculation (10-12).

Being closely associated with mortality and the presence of flow-limiting coronary artery disease, the degree of cardiac troponin elevation should be scored properly in risk stratification modules and contemplated in the timing for invasive management of those presenting with NSTE-ACS.

Troponin I and percutaneous coronary artery interventions in NSTE-ACS

In the setting of ACS, elevated troponin is associated with impaired myocardial tissue perfusion and lower rate of coronary recanalization after percutaneous coronary intervention (13-18). Troponin elevation also signifies adverse short and long-term prognosis in this patient population (19-22). Similarly, in our study, we observed that elevated troponin was associated with increased thrombus burden, worse systolic function, higher complexity of the lesions, and worse post intervention TIMI flow.

Subgroup analysis of ACS clinical trials showed that elevated troponin identified a subset of NSTE-ACS patients who would derive benefit from the addition of antithrombotic therapy and intravenous anti-platelet therapy to a conventional regimen. This is gained via reduction of thrombus formation at the culprit lesion and facilitation of distal micro-thrombi resolution (23-26).

The current guidelines identify the value of elevated troponin when choosing anti-thrombotic therapy, with or without invasive strategy. However, there is no consensus regarding a clinically relevant level of troponin that will provide the most benefit to invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients.

Predictors of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in NSTE-ACS:

Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the main etiology for LVSD in the United States and North America. The development of LVSD following ACS significantly worsens short- and long-term prognosis (17,27,28).  

We targeted patients with no prior history of coronary artery disease, heart failure or cardiac surgery who were referred for coronary angiograms for a new diagnosis of NSTE-ACS to assess the predictors of LVSD. Cardiac troponin I levels >5 ng/ml were the most important predictor of LVSD following a new onset NSTE-ACS in patients with no prior history of coronary artery disease (Table 2).

The previous ACC/AHA (2012-2013) guidelines recommended early invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients with a systolic ejection fraction of less than 40% (9). The timing of this recommendation was revised in the most recent guidelines (29).

Using clinical characteristics and risk factors at admission to identify risk of heart failure influences therapeutic decisions and permits an individualized approach to each patient. LVSD is a major concern among invasively managed ACS patients and imposes a large economic burden on the health care system. Troponin level could be used as a cost-effective tool to stratify patients who are at risk of LVSD, allowing appropriate early measures to improve their outcome.

Troponin I and Early versus Delayed Intervention in NSTE-ACS

The optimal timing of angiography has not been conclusively established in NTE-ACS (29). In earlier randomized trials, better outcomes were obtained with an early invasive strategy in patient with troponin I elevation when compared to those with normal troponin levels (30). In other reports, investigators found that early invasive intervention was not superior to a delayed invasive approach in NSTE-ACS patients for the prevention of death or myocardial infarction, even in those with positive cardiac biomarkers (31, 32).

The most notable beneficial effect of an invasive versus a conservative strategy in the management of NSTE-ACS patients was demonstrated in the reduction of recurrent MI, although the effect on mortality was seen in high-risk patients only (29,33).  Prospective trials to determine a clinically relevant troponin level that will determine the timing of an invasive strategy and its impact on patients’ outcomes are yet to be conducted (1).

Study Limitations

Our cohort study is subject to the standard bias associated with retrospective observations including selection bias, incomplete records, and loss of patients’ long-term follow-up.

The results of our study were derived from a single-center using a particular assay kit for serum troponin testing; thus, generalizability is a concern. Follow-up of cardiac events, recurrent hospitalizations, and long-term adverse events was beyond the scope of our study.

Conclusion

The degree of cardiac troponin I elevation should be incorporated into the risk stratification models of NSTE-ACS to promptly triage high-risk patients to early invasive strategies and tailored anticoagulant therapy to reduce troponin elevation and improve myocardial perfusion.

Acknowledgement

The authors of the study would like to thank Melissa Hodges (Cardiac Clinical Nurse Specialist) for her help with data abstraction.

References

1. Abdul Jabbar A. The clinical implications of cardiac troponins. General Med. 2013;1: 108. [CrossRef]
2. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction, J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 16;60(16):1581-98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Newby LK, Jesse RL, Babb JD, Christenson RH, De Fer TM, Diamond GA, Fesmire FM, Geraci SA, Gersh BJ, Larsen GC, Kaul S, McKay CR, Philippides GJ, Weintraub WS. ACCF 2012 expert consensus document on practical clinical considerations in the interpretation of troponin elevations: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation task force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 11;60(23):2427-63. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Antman EM, Tanasijevic MJ, Thompson B, et al. Cardiac-specific troponin I levels to predict the risk of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med.1996;335:1342-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Kleiman NS, Lakkis N, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, Di Battiste PM, Demopoulos LA, Weintraub WS, Braunwald E. Prospective analysis of creatine kinase muscle-brain fraction and comparison with troponin T to predict cardiac risk and benefit of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1044-50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Kontos MC, de Lemos JA, Ou FS, et al. Troponin-positive, MB-negative patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: An undertreated but high-risk patient group: Results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines (NCDR ACTION-GWTG) Registry. Am Heart J. 2010 Nov;160(5):819-25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Chin CT, Wang TY, Li S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of peak creatine kinase-mb and troponin levels among patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report from the acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network registry–get with the guidelines. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35(7):424-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Abdul Jabbar A, Ahsan C. Troponin I and the likelihood of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease in patients with NSTE-ACS. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 5;170(1):e17-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr, Chavey WE 2nd, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED, Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Jneid H, Ettinger SM, Ganiats TG, Lincoff AM, Philippides GJ, Zidar JP. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013 Jun 11;127(23):e663-828. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Boersma E, Pieper KS, Steyerberg EW, et al. Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. Results from an international trial of 9461 patients. The PURSUIT Investigators. Circulation. 2000;101:2557–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non–ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Eagle KA, Lim MJ, Dabbous OH, et al. A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA. 2004;291:2727–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. DeFillipi C, Tocchi M, Parmar R, et al. Cardiac troponin T in chest pain unit patients without ischemic electrocardiographic changes: angiographic correlates and long term clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1827–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Benamer H, Steg PG, Benessiano J, et al. Elevated cardiac troponin I predicts a highrisk angiographic anatomy of the culprit lesion in unstable angina. Am Heart J. 1999;137: 815–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Wong G, Morrow D, Murphy S, et al. Elevations in troponin T and I are associated with abnormal tissue level perfusion: a TACTICS-TIMI 18 substudy. Circulation. 2002; 106: 202–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Okamatsu K, Takano M, Sakai S, et al. Elevated troponin T Levels and lesion characteristics in non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2004; 109: 465–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Lindahl B, Diderholm E, Lagerqvist B, et al. Mechanisms behind the prognostic value of troponin T in unstable coronary artery disease: a FRISC II substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:979–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Heeschen C, van Den Brand M, Hamm C, et al. Angiographic findings in patients with refractory unstable angina according to troponin T status. Circulation. 1999;100: 1509–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Matetzky S, Sharir T, Domingo M, et al. Elevated troponin I level on admission is associated with adverse outcomeof primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2000;102:1611–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Stubbs P, Collinson P, Moseley D, Greenwood T, Noble M. Prognostic significance of admission troponin T concentrations in patients withmyocardial infarction. Circulation. 1996;94:1291–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Giannitsis E, Muller-Bardorff M, Lehrke S, et al. Admission troponin T level predicts clinical outcomes, TIMI flow, and myocardial tissue perfusion after primary percutaneous intervention for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001;104:630–5. [CrossRef]            [PubMed]
22. Kontos MC, Shah R, Fritz LM, et al. Implication of different cardiac troponin I levels for clinical outcomes and prognosis of acute chest pain patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:958–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Tanasijevic M, et al. Cardiac troponin I for stratification of early outcomes and the efficacy of enoxaparin in unstable angina: a TIMI 11B substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1812–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Lindahl B, Venge P, Wallentin L; for the Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) Study Group. Troponin T identifies patients with unstable coronary artery disease who benefit from long-term antithrombotic protection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:43–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Hamm CW, Heeschen C, Goldmann B, et al. Benefit of abciximab in patients with refractory unstable angina in relation to serum troponin T levels. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340:1623–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Heeschen C, Hamm CW, Goldmann B, Deu A, Langenbrink L, White HD. Troponin concentrations for stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes in relation to therapeutic efficacy of tirofiban. PRISM Study Investigators. Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1757-62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. St. John Sutton M, Pfeffer MA, Plappert T, et al. Quantitative two-dimensional echocardiographic measurements are major predictors of adverse cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction. The protective effects of captopril. Circulation. 1994;89:68 –75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Rao AC, Collinson PO, Canepa-Anson R, Joseph SP. Troponin T measurement after myocardial infarction can identify left ventricular ejection of less than 40%. Heart. 1998;80:223–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey Jr DE, Ganiats TG, Holmes Jr DR, Jaffe AS, Jneid H, Kelly RF, Kontos MC, Levine GN, Liebson PR, Mukherjee D, Peterson ED, Sabatine MS, Smalling RW, Zieman SJ. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23;64(24):e139-228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Rifai N, et al. Ability of minor elevations of troponins I and T to predict benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: results from a randomized trial. JAMA. 2001;286:2405–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. de Winter RJ, Windhausen F, Cornel JH, Dunselman PH, Janus CL, Bendermacher PE, Michels HR, Sanders GT, Tijssen JG, Verheugt FW; Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) Investigators, Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1095-104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, Steg PG, Bassand JP, Faxon DP, Afzal R, Chrolavicius S, Jolly SS, Widimsky P, Avezum A, Rupprecht HJ, Zhu J, Col J, Natarajan MK, Horsman C, Fox KA, Yusuf S; TIMACS Investigators, Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2165-75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Fox KA, Poole-Wilson P, Clayton TC, et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366:914-20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Abdul Jabbar A, Mufti O, Altabaqchali S, Ahsan C, Hasan M, Markert R, White B, Broderick G. High-sensitivity troponin i and the risk of flow limiting coronary artery disease in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;14(6):296-307. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc059-17 PDF 

June 2017 Critical Care Case of the Month

Stephanie Fountain, MD

Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine

Banner University Medical Center Phoenix

Phoenix, AZ USA

History of Present Illness

The patient is a 60-year-old woman who presented with a month long history of of odynophagia with retrosternal pain and occasional nausea and vomiting.

Past Medical History, Social History and Family History

She has a past medical history of mixed connective tissue disease with anti-phosopholipid antibody. There is also a history of leukocytoclastic vasculitis, chronic leg ulcers, and poor dentition. She also has a history of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) and is a current smoker having accumulated about 50 pack-years of cigarette smoking.

Current Medications

• Prednisone 20 mg daily
• Azathioprine 75 mg daily
• Plaquenil 400 mg daily
• Salmeterol/fluticasone BID
• Albuterol prn

Electrocardiographic, Radiologic and Laboratory Evaluation

Her electrocardiogram and chest x-ray were unremarkable. Complete blood count showed a white blood cell count of 10,500 cells per microliter (mcL), hemoglobin 10.3 grams/deciliter (dL), hematocrit 31%, and platelet count of 48,000 cells per mcL. Electrolytes were unremarkable and creatinine was 0.6 mg/dL.

What should be done next? (Click on the correct answer to proceed to the second of six pages)

1. Bronchoscopy
2. Gastroenterology consult
3. Platelet and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion
4. 1 and 3
5. All of the above

Cite as: Fountain S. June 2017 critical care case of the month. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;14(6):262-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc061-17 PDF

Clinical Performance of an Interactive Clinical Decision Support System for Assessment of Plasma Lactate in Hospitalized Patients with Organ Dysfunction

Robert A. Raschke, MD MS

Hargobind Khurana, MD 

Huw Owen-Reece, MBBS 

Robert H. Groves Jr, MD

Steven C. Curry, MD

Mary Martin, PharmD

Brenda Stoffer, RN BSN

Banner University Medical Center Phoenix

Phoenix, AZ USA

Abstract

Purpose: Elevated plasma lactate concentration can be a useful measure of tissue hypo-perfusion in acutely deteriorating patients, focusing attention on the need for urgent resuscitation. But lactate is not always assessed in a timely fashion in patients who have deteriorating vital signs. We hypothesized that an electronic medical record (EMR)-based decision support system could interact with clinicians to prompt assessment of plasma lactate in appropriate clinical situations in order to risk stratify a population of inpatients and identify those who are acutely deteriorating in real-time.

Methods: All adult patients admitted to our hospital over a three month period were monitored by an EMR-based lactate decision support system (lactate DSS) programmed to detect patients exhibiting acute organ dysfunction and engage the clinician in the decision to order a plasma lactate concentration. Inpatient mortality was determined for the five risk categories that this system generated, and chart review was performed on a high-risk subgroup to describe the spectrum of bedside events that triggered the system logic.

Results: The lactate DSS segregated inpatients into five strata with mortality rates of 0.8% (95%CI:0.6-1.0%); 2.7% (95%CI:1.0-4.4%); 7.9% (95%CI: 6.0-10.1%), 13.0% (95%CI: 9.0-17.8%) and 42.1% (95%CI: 32.0-52.4%), achieving a discriminant accuracy of 80% (95%CI:76-84%) by AUROC for predicting inpatient mortality. Classification into the two highest risk strata had a positive predictive value for detecting acute life-threatening clinical events of 54% (95%CI: 41.5-66.5%).

Conclusions: Our lactate decision support system is different than previously-described computerized “early warning systems”, because it engages the clinician in decision-making and incorporates clinical judgment in risk stratification. Our system has favorable operating characteristics for the prediction of inpatient mortality and real-time detection of acute life-threatening deterioration.

Introduction

Over 700,000 deaths occur annually in U.S. hospitals (1). Sepsis accounts directly for 37% and indirectly for 56% of these deaths (2). Other common causes of inpatient mortality such as acute hemorrhage and venous thromboembolism (3) share certain early clinical findings with sepsis, in that they may present with deterioration of vital signs and biochemical variables before life-threatening manifestations become obvious (4). Recognition of these findings provides an opportunity for early intervention, which has been shown to improve mortality (5,6). Studies have shown that failure to rapidly recognize acute clinical deterioration is one of the most common root causes of preventable inpatient mortality (4,8).

Early warning systems (EWSs) are a type of clinical decision support system (CDSS) utilized to provide surveillance of hospitalized patients in order to alert clinicians when a patient has findings associated with acute deterioration (19). These typically monitor for abnormal vital signs or laboratory evidence of organ dysfunction, but have included many other types of clinical and laboratory variables (20-23). Modern EWSs utilize logistic regression to weight up to 36 different independent variables and yield highly stratified risk scores (24-26).

We had previous experience developing a simple EWS that triggered when at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria plus at least one of 14 acute organ dysfunction (OD) parameters was detected. Although this system references SIRS it was found to be nonspecific for sepsis (27), and was subsequently employed in our healthcare system to identify patients deteriorating in real-time regardless of the cause. Subsequent research showed that our SIRS/OD alert system was triggered during the course of 19% of admissions, and that patients who triggered the alert had an odds ratio of 30.1 (95% CI: 26.1-34.5) for inpatient mortality (28). We hypothesized that this SIRS/OD alert system could be used to identify high risk patients who might be further risk-stratified by obtaining a plasma lactate concentration.

Elevated plasma lactate concentration is a particularly useful biochemical marker of acute decompensation. Hyperlactemia is pathophysiologically associated with acute tissue hypoperfusion, and clinically associated with organ dysfunction and mortality (7-11). Hyperlactemia is also associated with the need for urgent clinical interventions such as transfusion and urgent surgery in trauma patients (13,14), and resuscitation of medical patients with sepsis or other life-threatening illnesses (5,15). Lactate assessment is integral to the definition of sepsis (7,16), and an essential component of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign sepsis resuscitation bundle (6). Lactate assessment is integral to achieving sepsis bundle compliance as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which has mandated participating hospitals to report as a measure of quality of care. However, lactate is only ordered about half the time that it ought to be in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (17,18). To our knowledge, only one previously reported EWS incorporates lactate assessment (29), but this system passively utilized lactate concentration results obtained on admission from the emergency room and was not used for surveillance during hospitalization.

We sought to use our SIRS/OD alert system to actively trigger lactate assessment to identify patients suffering from sepsis or any other life-threatening disease process requiring immediate intervention during hospitalization. We hypothesized that the resulting “lactate decision support system” (lactate DSS) would provide inpatient mortality risk stratification with high discriminant accuracy, and detect acute life-threatening events with high positive predictive value compared to contemporary EWSs.

A lactate DSS with these favorable characteristics could theoretically be used to guide emergent interventions in an effort to save lives, although it was not our aim at this time to perform an interventional trial. The specific aims of this study were to pilot an interactive lactate DSS in our healthcare system, and to calculate its discriminant accuracy for mortality risk stratification, and its positive predictive value as a real-time early warning system.

Methods

We prospectively studied a cohort of all adult inpatients admitted to Banner-University Medical Center - Phoenix, a 650-bed academic hospital in Phoenix Arizona, during the first quarter of 2014. Our research was part of an ongoing system-level patient safety project and was approved by our Institutional Review Board.

The decision support logic was developed at Banner Health using Discern Expert^® (Cerner Corporation, North Kansas City MO, USA). The lactate decision support system (lactate DSS) monitored each patient in our EMR for vital signs and laboratory results consistent with SIRS and organ dysfunction, using criteria derived from the standard definition of sepsis (5-7) (Table 1).

Table 1. Lactate DSS trigger logic

If criteria for SIRS and organ dysfunction overlapped in any eight-hour window, the lactate DSS was triggered to respond. An electronic notification was generated to the patient’s nurse and physician alerting them to the possibility of acute clinical deterioration suggested by SIRS and organ dysfunction, and recommending evaluation and resuscitation if appropriate. Decision support included automatic generation of an order for a STAT plasma lactate if one was not previously ordered by the clinician, interactively prompting the clinician to cancel it if they felt it was unnecessary.

Adult admissions during the three-month study period and subsequent inpatient mortality were enumerated using our hospital’s general financial database: MedSeries4^® (Siemens Corporation, Washington DC). Although some patients triggered the lactate DSS multiple times over the course of their hospital stay, only the first trigger event was included in our analysis.

Inpatient mortality rates with ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated for each of five subgroups: 1) patients who did not exhibit SIRS and organ dysfunction during their hospitalization and therefore did not trigger a lactate DSS response; 2) patients who triggered a lactate DSS response, for whom a DSS-generated lactate order was cancelled by their clinician; 3) patients who triggered the lactate DSS and had a lactate concentration <2.2 mmol/L (normal for our laboratory); 4) patients who triggered the lactate DSS and had an elevated lactate of 2.2-3.9 mmol/L; and 5) patients who triggered the lactate DSS and had a highly elevated lactate >4.0 mmol/L.

It was our hypothesis that mortality in patients who triggered the lactate DSS logic would be equivalent whether the clinician chose not to cancel a DSS-generated lactate order, or the clinician had already entered a lactate order themselves. Therefore, we classified patients into the subgroups above regardless of whether their lactate order was DSS-generated or entered independently by the clinician. In order to confirm the validity of this hypothesis, the mortality rate of all patients with any lactate concentration result (the sum of groups 3, 4 and 5 above), and mortality rates within each lactate concentration strata, were separately analyzed to determine if mortality depended on the method of lactate order entry.

Stratified likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) generated using the five subgroups described above were calculated to determine the discriminant accuracy of the lactate DSS for the outcome of inpatient mortality.

A subgroup analysis was performed of all study patients with an elevated lactate >2.2 mmol/L (above the upper limit of normal range at our laboratory) detected by a DSS-generated lactate order during the first six weeks of the study. These patients’ charts were reviewed in order to characterize the acute clinical events that triggered a lactate DSS response in this subgroup of patients. A physician researcher reviewed progress notes, laboratory and microbiology results at the time of system activation, and for 72 hours afterwards to make this determination. Patient were determined to be suffering an acute life-threatening clinical event if a new-onset or rapidly-progressive disease process was present at the time the lactate DSS was triggered that required emergent treatment with any one of the following: >1 L intravenous fluid resuscitation, vasopressor infusion, >2 units of packed red blood cell transfusion, endotracheal intubation, advanced cardiac life support, or emergent surgical intervention. Minor clinical events included any diagnosis that required initiation of treatment not included in the definition of acute life threatening clinical events above. False alerts were said to have occurred when no evidence was found that the patient was clinically deteriorating in temporal relationship to lactate DSS activation, or within 72 hours. The positive predictive value of the system was calculated for the real-time detection of acute life-threatening clinical events. Microsoft Research and VassarStats^® on-line statistical software were used for statistical calculations.

Results

8,867 adult patients were admitted during our three-month study period. One hundred and ninety-six of 8867 patients (2.2% 95%CI: 1.9-2.5%) died while in the hospital. Seventy percent (138/196) of these inpatient deaths occurred in the 16% (1400/8867) of patients who triggered a lactate DSS response.

Four hundred seventy-nine of 1400 patients who triggered the lactate DSS already had a clinician-ordered lactate. A DSS-generated order for plasma lactate was entered for the remaining 921 patients, but clinicians cancelled 337 of these. DSS-generated lactate orders were resulted for the remaining 584 patients. These patients were merged with 479 patients who had clinician –ordered lactates for the purposes of further analysis after confirmation that mortality did not depend on how the lactate was ordered (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Stratification of inpatients into five subgroups by the lactate DSS.

Patients who did not trigger the lactate DSS logic (n=7467) had a mortality rate of 0.78% (95%CI: 0.58-0.98). Patients who triggered the lactate DSS and for whom a DSS-generated lactate order was cancelled by the clinician (n=337) had mortality of 2.7% (95%CI: 1.0-4.4%). Patients who triggered the lactate DSS and had a lactate concentration in the normal range (< 2.2 mmol/L; n=721) had mortality of 7.9% (95%CI: 6.0-10.1%), and those with elevated lactates of 2.2-3.9 and >4.0 mmol/L (n=247 and n=95) had mortality rates of 13.0% (95%CI: 9.0-17.8%) and 42.1% (95%CI: 32.0-52.4%) respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Inpatient mortality rates (Y-axis: Percent mortality) with 95% confidence intervals for five subgroups of patients stratified by lactate DSS.

The mortality of patients who triggered a lactate DSS response and for whom a lactate concentration was resulted did not depend on whether the order was DSS-generated or entered by the clinician (13.0% versus 12.1% (P=0.71)). Clinician-entered lactate orders were closely temporally related to the onset of organ dysfunction, preceding lactate DSS triggering by < six hours in 52%, <12 hours in 64%, and <24 hours in 75% of cases. Likelihood ratios for mortality in subgroups of patients with lactates <2.2, 2.2-3.9, and >4.0 mmol/L were 6.1 (95%CI: 5.4-6.9), 11.8 (95%CI: 9.5-14.7), and 32.4 (95%CI: 22.0-47.1) respectively.

Five-strata of mortality risk generated by the lactate DSS yielded an AUROC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.84) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Receiver-operating characteristic curve for mortality risk stratification by the lactate DSS.  

Focused chart review was performed on 61 patients who had elevated lactate (>2.2 mmol/L) detected by a DSS-generated lactate order. Thirty-three (54%) were experiencing acute life-threatening clinical events at the time the lactate DSS was triggered. These included 18 episodes of sepsis. Sepsis was due to pneumonia in nine patients, catheter-associated blood stream infection, bowel perforation, cellulitis, ascending cholangitis, endocarditis, liver abscess, cholecystitis, perianal abscess, or an unidentified source. Other acute life threatening clinical events included five cases of acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage, three of acute respiratory failure, and one each of post-operative bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute liver failure, retroperitoneal bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, subdural hematoma, and cerebral dural sinus thrombosis. Twenty-one (64%) of these events occurred outside the intensive care unit. The positive predictive value of the detection of SIRS, organ dysfunction and elevated lactate by the lactate DSS for acute life-threatening clinical events was 54% (95%CI: 41.5-66.5%).

Ten minor clinical events included anemia, atrial fibrillation, post-op third spacing, transient mild hypotension associated with end stage liver disease, sedation related to narcotics, and dialysis disequilibrium. There were 18 false alerts among patients with SIRS, organ dysfunction and elevated lactate detected by the system. (18/61=29%).

Discussion

Our lactate DSS effectively segregated a population of adult inpatients into five subgroups with increasing inpatient mortality. Clinician engagement was critically important in achieving this result. About a quarter (337/1400) of patients who triggered the lactate DSS (simultaneously exhibited SIRS and organ dysfunction) were doing well enough in their clinician’s opinion that the DSS-generated lactate order was cancelled. Clinicians exercised good judgment in this regard, identifying a subgroup of patients with inpatient mortality rate not significantly higher than the overall mortality of all patients admitted during the study. This supports our decision to incorporate clinician judgment in our risk stratification method.

Approximately half of patients (721/1400) who triggered the lactate DSS turned out to have a normal lactate concentration, yet suffered inpatient mortality ten-times higher than patients who did not trigger the system. This likely represents the independent association between SIRS and organ dysfunction with the risk for mortality (27, 31,32).

One hundred twenty-nine patients over 3 months (14.5 per 1000 patient admissions) triggered the lactate DSS and were found to have an elevated lactate concentration because of a DSS-generated lactate order. These patients had >50% probability of experiencing an acute life-threatening clinical event at the time the lactate DSS was triggered, and subsequently suffered 50% inpatient mortality.

Our lactate DSS is consistent with the new definition of sepsis because it uses organ dysfunction in addition to SIRS criteria (7). As stated in the new definition of sepsis, “Nonspecific SIRS criteria such as pyrexia or neutrophilia will continue to aid in the general diagnosis of infection” (7). Although these criteria are nonspecific, they appear to be relatively sensitive for sepsis (7,27). Our lactate DSS has excellent discriminant accuracy for predicting inpatient mortality (AUROC=0.80). It is comparable to other criteria such SOFA (AUROC = 0.74) and the Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (AUROC=0.75).The five strata into which it segregates patients could further translate into a decision support-guided treatment protocol, directing appropriate real-time interventions such as those proposed in Table 2.

Table 2. Proposed stratified clinical response to lactate DSS.

* Our data indicate that RRT activation would occur about twice a week at our hospital.

Our lactate DSS is different than EWSs because it specifically prompts assessment of plasma lactate in patients exhibiting SIRS and organ dysfunction, rather than simply generating a warning. But a discussion of the operating characteristics of previously reported EWSs is useful for purposes of comparison. A review of 33 EWSs has reported AUROCs ranging from 0.66-0.78 (19). Several more recent EWSs reported AUROCs of 0.81-0.88 (23,24,26,33), but AUROC comparisons are confounded by lack of consensus regarding which clinical outcome to analyze. Authors have variously chosen 24-hour mortality, ICU transfer, and cardiac arrest, among other outcomes (20,23,24). Many EWSs yield highly stratified results, which may increase the AUROC by adding detail to the shape of the ROC curve, but this will not improve clinical discrimination unless each resulting strata has a distinct clinical response. If a EWS is simply used to activate a rapid response team (RRT), the clinically-achievable discriminant accuracy is best described by a polygonal AUROC derived from a single cutoff with two resulting strata (activate the RRT, or do not activate the RRT). This two-strata AUROC will invariably be lower than the highly stratified AUROC that many authors report (23,24,26,33). Our AUROC analysis is based on 5 strata, each of which could reasonably trigger a distinct clinical response (Table 2).

Our lactate decision support system has a positive predictive value (PPV) for acute life-threatening clinical events that is superior to that of our previous “sepsis alert” (27) and to those reported in several reviews of EWSs. One review of 39 EWSs reported PPVs ranging from 13.5-26.1% (34), and another review of 25 systems reported a median PPV of 36.7% with interquartile range 29.3-43.8% (34). PPV was not reported for several of the most elegant and well-studied EWSs (22,23,25,32). From the perspective of bedside clinicians and rapid response team members, the efficiency of an alert system is strongly influenced by the PPV, because a poor PPV translates to frequent false alerts. The PPV is of particularly concern when the pretest probability of the outcome of interest is low, as in the case of inpatient mortality (2% at our hospital). Bayes theory indicates that a test with relatively good AUROC will have a poor PPV if the pretest probability is low enough.

Our study has several limitations. Our sample size is small compared to many contemporary EWS studies. We did not have the resources to perform focused chart reviews on all study patients and therefore had to limit individual case analysis to a subgroup of study patients. Our simple treatment of vital sign abnormalities as markers of SIRS is not as elaborate as in many EWSs. Our study is only hypothesis-generating, whereas several EWSs are well validated (25,32). We cannot provide data on how our alert might change bedside interventions by clinicians. To our knowledge, no study to date has proven that using a computerized decision support system or EWS to trigger rapid clinical intervention actually improves patient outcomes.

Conclusions

We developed an automated decision-support system that prompts assessment of plasma lactate concentration in patients exhibiting SIRS and organ dysfunction. Our lactate decision support system is different than previously-described EWSs because it engages the clinician in decision-making and incorporates clinical judgment into risk stratification. This system has favorable operating characteristics for the prediction of inpatient mortality and for detecting acute life-threatening events in real time. We have proposed a stratified clinical response based on classification of patients into five subgroups by this system that requires further testing, but our current study was not designed to demonstrate a benefit on clinical outcomes. Our lactate DSS has the potential to improve sepsis bundle compliance by helping clinicians appropriately order lactate concentrations in patients deteriorating due to the onset of sepsis – a hypothesis we are currently investigating. It also has potential for easy generalizability, particularly to other healthcare systems that share the same EMR as ours, but requires further refinement and validation.

Author Contributions

All authors were involved in conceptualization, design and implementation of the decision support system described in this manuscript, and in preparation of the manuscript, and all approve of the content of the manuscript and vouch for the validity of the data. We list below additional contributions from several of the authors:

RAR: data analysis and interpretation, main author of initial draft of the manuscript.

HOW: data analysis and interpretation, contribution to discussion/conclusions

HK: directly in charge of design and pilot implementation team for the decision support system, data interpretation, contribution to discussion, conclusions

RHG: data interpretation, contribution to discussion, conclusions

SCC: data analysis and interpretation, contribution to discussion, conclusions. Manuscript editing.

MM: data collection and analysis

BS: data collection and analysis

References

1. Center for Disease Control. Trends in inpatient hospital deaths: National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2000:2010. NCHS Data Brief 118; 2013. [PubMed]
2. Liu V, Escobar G, Greene JD, Soule J, et al. Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from two independent cohorts. JAMA. 2014;312:90-92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Nichols L, Chew B. Causes of sudden unexpected death of adult hospital patients. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:706-8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. McGloin H, Adam SK, Singer M. Unexpected deaths and referrals to intensive care of patients on general wards. Are some cases potentially avoidable? J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1999;33:255-9. [PubMed]
5. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. NEJM. 2001;345:1368-77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:580. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. National Patient Safety Agency. Safer care for the acutely ill patient: learning from serious incidents. 2007;Report # PSO/5. Available online at: http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/?EntryId45=59828 (accessed 5/9/17).
9. Gultepe E, Green JP, Nguyen H, Adams J, et al. From vital signs to clinical outcomes for patients with sepsis: a machine learning basis for a clinical decision support system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:315-325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Woodward R, Mulder PG, Bakker J. Association between blood lactate levels, sequential organ failure assessment sub-scores, and 28-day mortality during early and late intensive care unit stay: a retrospective observational study. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2369-74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Bakker J, Gris P, Coffernils M, Kahn RJ, Vincent JL. Serial blood lactate levels can predict the development of multiple organ failure following septic shock. Am J Surg. 1996;171:221-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Bakker J. Blood lactate monitoring in critically ill patients: a systematic health technology assessment. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2827-39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Guyette F, Suffoletto B, Castillo JL, Quintero J, Callaway C, Puyana JC. Prehospital serum lactate as a predictor of outcomes in trauma patients: A retrospective observational study. J Trauma. 2011;70:782–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Vandromme MJ, Griffin RL, Weinberg JA, Rue LW 3rd, Kerby JD. Lactate is a better predictor than systolic blood pressure for determining blood requirement and mortality: Could prehospital measures improve trauma triage? J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:861–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Schoonderbeek FJ, Sleeswijk Visser SL, et al. Early lactate-guided therapy in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:752-61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, et al. International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Gao R, Melody T, Daniels DF, Giles S and Fox S. The impact of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles on hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2005;9:R764–R770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010; 36: 222–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. Review and performance evaluation of aggregate weighted "track and trigger" systems. Resuscitation. 2008;77:170-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Hodgetts TJ, Kenward G, Vlachonikolis IG, Payne S, Castle N. The identification of risk factors for cardiac arrest and formulation of activation criteria to alert a medical emergency team. Resuscitation. 2002;54:125-31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Kho A, Rotz D, Alrahi K, Cardenas W, et al. Utility of commonly captured data from an HER to identify hospitalized patients at risk for clinical deterioration. AMIA 2007 symposium proceedings. 404-8.[CrossRef]
22. Howell MD, Donnino M, Clardy P, Talmor D, Shapiro NI. Occult hypoperfusion and mortality in patients with suspected infection. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1892-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Escobar GJ, LaGuardia JC, Turk BJ, Ragins A, et al. Early detection of impending physiological deterioration among patients who are not in intensive care: Development of predictive models using data from an automated electronic medical record. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:388-95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Prytherch DR, Smith GB, Schmidt P, Featherstone PI. ViEWS – towards a national early warning score for detecting adult inpatient deterioration. Resuscitation. 2010;81:932-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Bailey TC, Yixin C, Mao Y, Lu C, et al. A trial of a real-time alert for clinical deterioration in patients hospitalized on general medical wards. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:236-42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Winslow C, Robicsek AA, et al. Multicenter development and validation of a risk stratification tool for ward patients. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2014;190:649-55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Raschke RA, Owen-Reece H, Khurana H, Groves RH Jr, et al. Clinical performance of an automated systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)/organ dysfunction alert: a system-based patient safety project. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;9:223-9. [CrossRef]
28. Khurana, H, Groves RH, Simons MP, Martin M, Stoffer B, et al. Real-time automated continuous sampling of electronic medical records predicts hospital mortality. Am J Med. 2016 Jul;129(7):688-698.e2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Jo S, Lee JB, Jin YH, Jeong TO, et al. Modified early warning score with rapid lactate level in critically ill medical patients: the ViEWS-L score. Emerg Med J. 2013;30:123-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Rangel-Frausto MS, Pittet, D, Costigan M, et al. The natural history of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS): A prospective study. JAMA. 1995;273:117-123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Matthew M, Churpek F, Zadravecz J, et al. Incidence and prognostic value of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and organ dysfunctions in ward patients. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2015;192:958-64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Pittet D, Range-Frausto S, Tarara LN, Lin N, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: incidence, morbidities and outcomes in surgical ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21:302-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Kellett J, Kim A. Validation of an abbreviated Vitalpac early warning score (ViEWS) in 75,419 consecutive admission to a Canadian regional hospital. Resuscitation. 2012;83:297-302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI, et al. A review and performance evaluation of single-parameter "track and trigger" systems. Resuscitation. 2008;79:11-21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Gao H, McDonnell A, Harrison DA, Moore T, et al. Systemic review and evaluation of physiological track and trigger warning systems for identifying at-risk patients on the ward. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:667-79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Raschke RA, Khurana H, Owen-Reece H, Groves RH Jr, Curry SC, Martin M, Stoffer B. Clinical performance of an interactive clinical decision support system for assessment of plasma lactate in hospitalized patients with organ dysfunction. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;14:241-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc058-17 PDF