While sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SICM) has been recognized as a distinct entity since 1984, there are still no commonly agreed upon diagnostic criteria. This highlights a consequential gap in our collective medical knowledge with the potential to change patient outcomes. Purpose of Review To briefly review epidemiology and pathophysiology of SICM and provide a more extensive review of the data on diagnostic and management strategies. Recent Findings SICM is likely underdiagnosed and that has mortality implications. Current evidence supports speckle tracking echocardiography to identify decreased contractility irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction for the diagnosis of SICM. There continues to be a dearth of large clinical trials evaluating the treatment of SICM and current consensus focuses on supportive measures such as vasopressors and inotropes. Summary Sepsis is a significant cause of mortality, and sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy has both prognostic and management implications for these patients. Individualized work-up and management of these patients is crucial to improving outcomes.

Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Decades of research have failed to identify any specific therapeutic targets outside of antibiotics, infectious source elimination, and supportive care. More recently, vitamin C has emerged as a potential therapeutic agent to treat sepsis. Vitamin C has been shown to be deficient in septic patients and the administration of high dose intravenous as opposed to oral vitamin C leads to markedly improved and elevated serum levels. Its physiologic role in sepsis includes attenuating oxidative stress and inflammation, improving vasopressor synthesis, enhancing immune cell function, improving endovascular function, and epigenetic immunologic modifications. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of vitamin C and two recent studies have shown promising data on mortality improvement. Currently, larger randomized controlled studies are underway to validate these findings. With further study, vitamin C may become standard of care for the treatment of sepsis, but given its safety profile, current treatment can be justified with compassionate use.

(1) Background: The disease-modifying mechanisms of high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) in sepsis induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a post hoc study of plasma biomarkers from subjects enrolled in the randomized placebo-controlled trial CITRIS-ALI. We explored the effects of HDIVC on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and syndecan-1, surrogates for neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation and degradation of the endothelial glycocalyx, respectively. (3) Results: In 167 study subjects, baseline cfDNA levels in HDIVC (84 subjects) and placebo (83 subjects) were 2.18 ng/µL (SD 4.20 ng/µL) and 2.65 ng/µL (SD 3.87 ng/µL), respectively, p = 0.45. At 48-h, the cfDNA reduction was 1.02 ng/µL greater in HDIVC than placebo, p = 0.05. Mean baseline syndecan-1 levels in HDIVC and placebo were 9.49 ng/mL (SD 5.57 ng/mL) and 10.83 ng/mL (SD 5.95 ng/mL), respectively, p = 0.14. At 48 h, placebo subjects exhibited a 1.53 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.96 to 2.11) increase in syndecan-1 vs. 0.75 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.29, p = 0.05), in HDIVC subjects. (4) Conclusions: HDIVC infusion attenuated cell-free DNA and syndecan-1, biomarkers associated with sepsis-induced ARDS. Improvement of these biomarkers suggests amelioration of NETosis and shedding of the vascular endothelial glycocalyx, respectively.

ImportanceIndividuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited.ObjectiveTo measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19–related hospitalization.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022.ExposureHospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNew or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months.ResultsA total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

No abstract