Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34910264›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2021

Diagnosing capillary leak in critically ill patients: development of an innovative scoring instrument for non-invasive detection.

Jakob Wollborn, Lars O Hassenzahl, Daniel Reker, Hans Felix Staehle, Anne Marie Omlor, Wolfgang Baar, Kai B Kaufmann, Felix Ulbrich, Christian Wunder, Stefan Utzolino and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Systemic capillary leak syndrome.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jakob WollbornDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. jwollborn@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6767-7978
Lars O HassenzahlDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Daniel RekerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Hans Felix StaehleDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Anne Marie OmlorDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Wolfgang BaarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Kai B KaufmannDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Felix UlbrichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Christian WunderDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stefan UtzolinoDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Hartmut BuerkleDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Johannes KalbhennDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Sebastian HeinrichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Ulrich GoebelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDuke University · USRobert Bosch Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concomitant occurrence of the symptoms intravascular hypovolemia, peripheral edema and hemodynamic instability is typically named Capillary Leak Syndrome (CLS) and often occurs in surgical critical ill patients. However, neither a unitary definition nor standardized diagnostic criteria exist so far. We aimed to investigate common characteristics of this phenomenon with a subsequent scoring system, determining whether CLS contributes to mortality.

methodsWe conducted this single-center, observational, multidisciplinary, prospective trial in two separately run surgical ICUs of a tertiary academic medical center. 200 surgical patients admitted to the ICU and 30 healthy volunteers were included. Patients were clinically diagnosed as CLS or No-CLS group (each N = 100) according to the grade of edema, intravascular hypovolemia, hemodynamic instability, and positive fluid balance by two independent attending physicians with > 10 years of experience in ICU. We performed daily measurements with non-invasive body impedance electrical analysis, ultrasound and analysis of serum biomarkers to generate objective diagnostic criteria. Receiver operating characteristics were used, while we developed machine learning models to increase diagnostic specifications for our scoring model.

resultsThe 30-day mortility was increased among CLS patients (12 vs. 1%, P = 0.002), while showing higher SOFA-scores. Extracellular water was increased in patients with CLS with higher echogenicity of subcutaneous tissue [29(24-31) vs. 19(16-21), P < 0.001]. Biomarkers showed characteristic alterations, especially with an increased angiopoietin-2 concentration in CLS [9.9(6.2-17.3) vs. 3.7(2.6-5.6)ng/mL, P < 0.001]. We developed a score using seven parameters (echogenicity, SOFA-score, angiopoietin-2, syndecan-1, ICAM-1, lactate and interleukin-6). A Random Forest prediction model boosted its diagnostic characteristics (AUC 0.963, P < 0.001), while a two-parameter decision tree model showed good specifications (AUC 0.865).

conclusionsDiagnosis of CLS in critically ill patients is feasible by objective, non-invasive parameters using the CLS-Score. A simplified two-parameter diagnostic approach can enhance clinical utility. CLS contributes to mortality and should, therefore, classified as an independent entity.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS No. 00012713), Date of registration 10/05/2017, www.drks.de.

Indexed as

Capillary leak syndromeCritical careEndothelial permeabilityFluid balanceSepsis

Identifiers

PMID34910264
PMCPMC8674404
OpenAlexW4200494109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.