Derivation and Validation of a Predictive Score for Respiratory Failure Worsening Leading to Secondary Intubation in COVID-19: The CERES Score

Endocan as a biomarker for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aims

Endocan is a marker of endothelial damage. Data regarding the association of this proteoglycan and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is discrepant. Hence, this study sought to investigate the possible correlation between serum/plasma endocan concentration and ARDS.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of international online databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Web of Science were searched in March 2023, with the leading search terms being "ARDS" OR "respiratory distress" AND "endocan" and other associated terms. Studies that measured endocan levels in patients with ARDS and compared it with non-ARDS controls or within different severities of ARDS were included. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis for pooling the differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We included 14 studies involving 1,058 patients. Those developing ARDS had significantly higher levels of endocan compared to those without ARDS (SMD: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.10-0.84, p = 0.01). Our meta-analysis of three studies found that endocan levels in ARDS nonsurvivors were significantly higher than in survivors (SMD: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.02-0.60, p = 0.03). Three studies investigated endocan levels in different severities of ARDS. Only one of these studies reported significantly higher endocan levels in patients with worsening acute respiratory failure at Day 15. The other two reported no significant association between ARDS severity and circulating endocan levels.

Conclusion

Blood endocan levels were significantly higher in patients with ARDS than those without. Additionally, among patients with ARDS, blood endocan values were significantly elevated in nonsurvivors compared to survivors. These findings could help researchers design future studies and solidify these findings and finally, clinicians to take advantage of measuring endocan in clinical settings for assessment of patients with ARDS.

Systematic Review of Endocan as a Potential Biomarker of COVID-19

Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several biomarkers have been proposed to assess the diagnosis and prognosis of this disease. The present systematic review evaluated endocan (a marker of endothelial cell damage) as a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for COVID-19. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for studies comparing circulating endocan levels between COVID-19 cases and controls, and/or different severities/complications of COVID-19. Eight studies (686 individuals) were included, from which four reported significantly higher levels of endocan in COVID-19 cases compared with healthy controls. More severe disease was also associated with higher endocan levels in some of the studies. Studies reported higher endocan levels in patients who died from COVID-19, were admitted to an intensive care unit, and had COVID-19-related complications. Endocan also acted as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker with different cut-offs. In conclusion, endocan could be a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for COVID-19. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to evaluate this role of endocan.

Development of a Decision Support Tool for Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients Admitted for SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The CALT Protocol

Severe COVID-19 infections are at high risk of causing thromboembolic events (TEEs). However, the usual exams may be unavailable or unreliable in predicting the risk of TEEs at admission or during hospitalization. We performed a retrospective analysis of two centers (n = 124 patients) including severe COVID-19 patients to determine the specific risk factors of TEEs in SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission and during stays at the intensive care unit (ICU). We used stepwise regression to create two composite scores in order to predict TEEs in the first 48 h (H0-H48) and during the first 15 days (D1-D15) in ICU. We then evaluated the performance of our scores in our cohort. During the period H0-H48, patients with a TEE diagnosis had higher D-Dimers and ferritin values at day 1 (D1) and day 3 (D3) and a greater drop in fibrinogen between D1 and D3 compared with patients without TEEs. Over the period D1-D15, patients with a diagnosis of a TEE showed a more marked drop in fibrinogen and had higher D-Dimers and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) values at D1 and D3. Based on ROC analysis, the COVID-related acute lung and deep vein thrombosis (CALT) 1 score, calculated at D1, had a diagnostic performance for TEEs at H0-H48, estimated using an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (CI95%: 0.76-0.93, p < 10^-3). The CALT 2 score, calculated at D3, predicted the occurrence of TEEs over the period D1-D15 with an estimated AUC of 0.85 (CI95%: 0.77-0.93, p < 10^-3). These two scores were used as the basis for the development of the CALT protocol, a tool to assist in the decision to use anticoagulation during severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. The CALT scores showed good performances in predicting the risk of TEEs in severe COVID-19 patients at admission and during ICU stays. They could, therefore, be used as a decision support protocol on whether or not to initiate therapeutic anticoagulation.

Plasma Endocan as a Biomarker of Thrombotic Events in COVID-19 Patients

(1) Background: Endocan is a marker of endothelial dysfunction that may be associated with thrombotic events. The aim of the study was to investigate the performance of endocan as a marker of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients. (2) Methods: We measured endocan in plasma from 79 documented COVID-19 patients classified according to disease severity (from mild to critical). Thrombotic events were recorded. (3) Results: Endocan concentrations at admission were significantly increased according to COVID-19 severity. Levels of endocan were significantly increased in patients experiencing thrombotic events in comparison with those without (16.2 (5.5−26.7) vs. 1.81 (0.71−10.5) ng/mL, p < 0.001). However, endocan concentrations were not different between pulmonary embolism and other thrombotic events. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis for the identification of thrombotic events showed an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.776 with an optimal threshold at 2.83 ng/mL (93.8% sensitivity and 54.7% specificity). When combining an endocan measurement with D-dimers, the AUC increased to 0.853. When considering both biomarkers, the Kaplan−Meier survival curves showed that the combination of endocan and D-dimers better discriminated patients with thrombotic events than those without. The combination of D-dimers and endocan was independently associated with thrombotic events. (4) Conclusions: Endocan might be a useful and informative biomarker to better identify thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients.

Development and Internal Validation of a New Prognostic Model Powered to Predict 28-Day All-Cause Mortality in ICU COVID-19 Patients-The COVID-SOFA Score

Background: The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has poor discriminative ability for death in severely or critically ill patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Our aim was to create a new score powered to predict 28-day mortality. Methods: Retrospective, observational, bicentric cohort study including 425 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, acute respiratory failure and SOFA score ≥ 2 requiring ICU admission for ≥72 h. Factors with independent predictive value for 28-day mortality were identified after stepwise Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression. Based on the regression coefficients, an equation was computed representing the COVID-SOFA score. Discriminative ability was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, concordance statistics and precision-recall curves. This score was internally validated. Results: Median (Q1−Q3) age for the whole sample was 64 [55−72], with 290 (68.2%) of patients being male. The 28-day mortality was 54.58%. After stepwise Cox PH regression, age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and SOFA score remained in the final model. The following equation was computed: COVID-SOFA score = 10 × [0.037 × Age + 0.347 × ln(NLR) + 0.16 × SOFA]. Harrell’s C-index for the COVID-SOFA score was higher than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality (0.697 [95% CI; 0.662−0.731] versus 0.639 [95% CI: 0.605−0.672]). Subsequently, the prediction error rate was improved up to 16.06%. Area under the ROC (AUROC) was significantly higher for the COVID-SOFA score compared with the SOFA score for 28-day mortality: 0.796 [95% CI: 0.755−0.833] versus 0.699 [95% CI: 0.653−0.742, p < 0.001]. Better predictive value was observed with repeated measurement at 48 h after ICU admission. Conclusions: The COVID-SOFA score is better than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality prediction. Improvement in predictive value seen with measurements at 48 h after ICU admission suggests that the COVID-SOFA score can be used in a repetitive manner. External validation is required to support these results.