Is Carboxyhaemoglobin an Effective Bedside Prognostic Tool for Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients?

Bianca‐Liana Grigorescu¹, Oana Coman², Anca Meda Văsieșiu³, Anca Bacârea⁴, Marius Petrișor², Irina Săplăcan⁵, Raluca Ștefania Fodor¹

1 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
2 Department of Simulation Applied in Medicine, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
3 Department of Infectious Diseases, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
4 Department of Pathophysiology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
5 County Emergency Clinical Hospital, Targu Mures, Romania

DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2023-0031

Introduction: Proper management of sepsis poses a challenge even today, with early diagnosis and targeted treatment being the most important steps. Easy, cost-effective bedside tools are needed in order to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis or septic shock.
Aim of study: This study aims to find a correlation between Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) severity scores, the Neutrophil-Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in septic or septic shock patients with the scope of establishing a bed side cost-effective prognostic tool.
Materials and methods: A pilot, prospective, observational, and ongoing study was conducted on 61 patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock according to the SEPSIS 3 Consensus definition. We followed clinical and paraclinical parameters on day 1 (D1) and day 5 (D5) after meeting the inclusion criteria.
Results: On D1 we found a statistically significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), r = 0.7287 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.5841-0.8285, r = 0.6862 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.5251-0.7998 and r = 0.8534 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.7663 to 0.9097. On D5 we observed similar results: a significant positive correlation between each severity score (p <0.0001), with r = 0.7877 for SOFA vs. APACHE II with CI: 0.6283 to 0.8836, r = 0.8210 for SOFA vs. SAPS II with CI: 0.6822 to 0.9027 and r = 0.8880 for APACHE II vs. SAPS II., CI: 0.7952 to 0.9401. Nil correlation was found between the severity scores, NLR and COHb on D1 and D5.
Conclusion: Cost-effective bedside tools to pinpoint towards the outcome of sepsis are yet to be found, however the positive correlation between the severity scores point out to a combination of such tools for prognosis prediction of septic or septic shock patients.