Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Early high-sensitivity troponin elevation and short-term mortality in sepsis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Matters Arising to this article was published on 18 March 2025

Abstract

Background

Serum cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation is a well-established phenomenon in sepsis. However, the clinical significance of this phenomenon with high-sensitivity (hs) assays and the current sepsis definition needs to be settled.

Research Question

What is the association between early serum cTn levels measured by hs-assays and the risk of short-term mortality in septic patients?

Study Design and Methods

We conducted a systematic review using a comprehensive PubMed, Scopus, and Embase search. Studies were eligible if they reported association data on early hs-cTn and mortality in an adult sample with sepsis that met the Sepsis-3 definition. For the synthesis of the effect of hs-cTn on mortality, we applied random effect models on the pooled unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio (OR and aOR, respectively) of elevated vs. normal hs-cTn serum values, and on the crude standardized mean difference (SMD) of hs-cTn between survivors and non-survivors.

Results

In total, 6242 patients from 17 studies were included, with short-term mortality rates ranging from 16.9% to 53.8%. Using a crude analysis, non-survivor patients showed higher hs-cTn than survivors (SMD of 0.87, 95%CI: 0.41–1.33). Elevated hs-cTn was associated with increased mortality (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.41–2.25). However, this prognostic effect was absent in studies that adjusted for different confounders (aOR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.99–1.14).

Discussion and Conclusions

Non-survivors of sepsis exhibited significantly elevated hs-cTn levels. While elevated hs-cTn levels are associated with an increased risk of mortality, they are not independently associated with this outcome in sepsis.

Background

According to the current definition (Sepsis-3), sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection [1]. Patients diagnosed using the Sepsis-3 definition have a higher mortality risk and rate of adverse events [2, 3]; 25% of septic patients die in the hospital, increasing up to 50% in the septic-shock group [1]. Thus, sepsis is one of the most common causes of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) [3].

Sepsis can induce acute myocardial injury and cardiac dysfunction [4] and serum cardiac troponin (cTn) is used to diagnose acute myocardial injury [5]. In recent years, high-sensitivity cTn (hs-cTn) assays have increasingly replaced conventional essays because of their lower limit of detection and lower normality cutoff [6]. Currently, serum hs-cTn assessment is recommended to rule out acute myocardial infarction and to detect cardiac injury in other scenarios, such as sepsis [5, 7].

Although acute myocardial injury is well-established in patients with sepsis, the prognostic role of cTn elevation is unclear [4, 8, 9]. Previous meta-analyses [10,11,12] showed a significant association between cTn elevation and increased mortality in septic patients. However, these studies included patients who did not meet the current sepsis definition, were heterogeneous in timing and type of cTn assessment, were not oriented to a specific clinical setting, and did not control confounding factors [4]. Moreover, there are few studies on hs-cTn assays in the modern setting, which may impact the stratification of patients and, therefore, the prognostic association of this biomarker with mortality risk [7]. Thus, we conducted this systematic review to assess the association of early serum hs-cTn levels with short-term mortality of patients admitted to the ICU or the emergency department (ED) because of sepsis, according to Sepsis-3.

Methods

The methodology was defined a priori, and it is fully described in a published protocol [13], which was created using the standard guidelines for systematic reviews of prognostic factors [14] and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024468883) in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [15].

Eligibility criteria

Both observational and interventional primary studies were deemed eligible if they included at least ten events in adult patients diagnosed either with sepsis by Sepsis-3 criteria [1], severe sepsis by Sepsis-1 or Sepsis-2 [16, 17], or septic shock by any of the above criteria [1, 16, 17]. Additionally, studies were not eligible if they focused exclusively on patients with a specific underlying pathology, such as cancer. Eligibility was further restricted to studies that specified the utilization of any hs-cTn assay within the first 24 h and whose reported limit of detection was considered high-sensitivity (i.e., < 5 ng/L) [5]. When this limit was not provided, we excluded studies that failed to meet a normal limit cutoff of 20 ng/L or lower [5]. Only studies conducted in ICU or ED settings that evaluated short-term mortality (defined as reported ICU, 28-day, or in-hospital mortality; in that preferential order) were included.

Information sources and search strategy

In August 2024, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched for primary articles with no date limit and no language restriction. The search strings combine free text and MeSH/EMTREE terms for all words related to troponin and sepsis [13]. Also, we manually scrutinized references of previous reviews to retrieve missing pertinent papers. Abstracts and conferences were suitable for inclusion only if they provided all critical data. Gray literature and retracted papers were not included.

Selection process and data collection

Two independent reviewers scrutinized the search results, and a third resolved any discrepancies. Studies that passed a first screening based on the title and abstract under criteria were extracted for full-text assessment. The data collection process was conducted using standardized forms. Reported associations suitable to be extracted were: (1) dose–response: odds ratios (OR), risk ratios (RR), or hazard ratios (HR) per unit increase in cTn; (2) category-or quantile-based data: contingency tables or ratios by cTn level groups; (3) means: means or mean differences in cTn between survivor and non-survivor groups [18]. Adjusted and unadjusted effect measures were collected separately. Authors of each study were contacted to request critical missing data regarding these associations. OR was used as a common effect measure for dose–response and category/quantile-based data, as we previously described [13].

Quality assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) by applying the Quality in Prognostic factor Studies (QUIPS) tool [19], which considers the following domains: (1) study participation, (2) study attrition, (3) prognostic factor measurement, (4) outcome measurement, (5) study confounding, and (6) statistical analysis and reporting. The overall assessment could be categorized as low, moderate, or high RoB. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We predefined D1, D3, and D5 as the key domains for our assessment and specified criteria for each of these domains (Additional File 1). Predetermined core adjustment factors in the confounding domain were: severity of sepsis, age, and clinical comorbidity (any cardiac or renal). Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE guidelines for prognostic studies [20].

Statistical analysis

The structural analysis of mortality risk considered separate models for unadjusted and adjusted effect measures. Regarding the unadjusted model, whenever feasible, we built a 2 × 2 contingency table [7, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27] from data, according to the cutoff defined by each study; otherwise, we directly integrated extracted ORs with their standard errors (SEs) [28] into the model. The adjusted model incorporated effect measures from category-based (dichotomous variable) [7, 22, 27, 28] and dose–response (continuous variable) multivariate regressions [24, 29, 30]. As predetermined [13], dose–response ORs were scaled to an OR per 50 ng/L increase [29, 30], from a 10 ng/L baseline in the case of log-transformed cTn variable [24], since we considered this magnitude useful and representative of the difference between normal and elevated cTn groups [24, 25, 27]. We handled one extracted HR [27] as OR because its its value was close to 1 [31].

We performed the meta-analysis of studies reporting serum troponin mean and standard deviation (SD) data by survival status with Hedges´g standardized mean difference (SDM) [32]. Means and SDs were estimated from quartile data [33] when not explicitly reported [7, 21, 25,26,27, 34,35,36].

All pooled estimates were computed by inverse variance weighting in random effect models using the R-4.3.1 package metafor [37]. SEs were obtained from p-values [38]. Raw data, calculations, and formulas can be accessed in Additional File 1. We adopted a minimally contextualized approach to interpreting the prognostic value of hs-cTn using a clinically relevant threshold for elevated hs-cTn levels. In line with this, the threshold for clinical relevance was set using the relative estimator, with an OR value of 1 and a SMD of 0 as the threshold for no effect.

Results

Selected studies

After discarding duplicates, we obtained 1114 references, of which 289 passed the primary screening, and 17 were finally included [7, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 34,35,36, 39,40,41], encompassing 6242 patients (Fig. 1). Patients’ mean age ranged between 57 and 73.3. The male percentage was between 52 and 70%. Regarding the type of hs-cTn, 12 studies used cTnT [7, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34,35,36, 39,40,41], and five used cTnI [21,22,23, 26, 29]; none included both.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection process. hs-cTn: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin

Mortality follow-up was 28 to 30 days in 10 studies [21,22,23, 26,27,28,29, 34, 39, 40], up to ICU discharge in two studies [25, 30], and in-hospital in five studies [7, 24, 35, 36, 41]. The short-mortality rate spanned between 16,9% and 53,8%. The sampling time of troponin was described as during the first day in three studies [7, 35, 41], and at-admission in the rest. Three studies were multi-center and 14 single-center. Concerning the study type, 11 studies were prospective cohorts [7, 21, 22, 26, 28, 34,35,36, 39,40,41], four historical cohorts [24, 25, 27, 29], and two randomized clinical trials [23, 30] (Table 1).

Table 1 Included studies

Risk of bias

In the adjusted mortality risk assessment, overall RoB was low in all but two studies included in the model [28, 29]. The study confounding domain was the most problematic since these studies did not adjust for core factors [28, 29]. Other risks were deemed minor and did not justify of downgrading the overall judgment of the study as predefined in the protocol [14]. The RoB assessment of unadjusted OR and SMD models can be accessed in the Additional File 1.

Meta-analysis

In the mortality odds unadjusted model, a total of 1064 individuals died amongst 3935 patients, constituting a mortality rate of 27%. The pooled OR for elevated hs-cTn was 1.78 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.41–2.25), which suggests that individuals in the elevated troponin group had 78% higher odds of death (Fig. 2). The adjusted model included 1216 events out of 4336 total patients, with a mortality rate of 28%. The adjusted model showed no significant association between elevated hs-cTn and mortality (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.99–1.13). We omitted one study [41] from the latter model because it reported an OR that was thousands of orders of magnitude greater than the others (Fig. 3.). Disease severity scores (SOFA, APACHE-II, and SAPS-II), comorbidities, age, and cardiac function parameters, among others, were common confounding factors used to adjust the effect estimates (Table 1). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the adjusted analysis and was deemed to be moderate (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Meta-analysis of unadjusted association between elevated high-sentivity cardiac troponin and sepsis mortality

Fig. 3
figure 3

Meta-analysis of the adjusted association between elevated high-sentivity cardiac troponin and sepsis mortality

Table 2 Summary of Findings

In the SMD model, the incidence of events was 31% (775 out of 2489 patients). This unadjusted estimate revealed an increase of 0.84 SMD (95% CI 0.16–1.52) of serum hs-cTn levels among the deceased patients (Fig. 4.). Using a representative standard deviation [27], this effect size would translate to a mean difference of 105.6 ng/L (95% CI: 20.4 to 190.8 ng/L) between both groups.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Meta-analysis of standardized mean difference of serum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin between survivors and non-survivors

Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis

We assessed inconsistency primarily by visual inspection and then taking into consideration I [2] statistics (where I2 > 50% and p-value < 0.10 is usually considered relevant heterogeneity) [20]. The unadjusted mortality odds model barely showed any heterogeneity at all. In the adjusted odds model, we attributed the high I2 statistic to the large sample size and small CIs of the two main studies [27, 29]. Indeed, by removing any of the studies, the I2 statistic dropped to 44.5% and 0%, respectively. Ultimately, we deemed heterogeneity irrelevant since their estimates were very close.

A sensitivity analysis of only with category-based adjusted effect measures [7, 22, 27, 28], presented an estimate reasonably similar to the model with all adjusted studies (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03–1.13). Notably, this estimate also almost exclusively renders a low RoB sample. Therefore, no subgroup analyses were performed on these models.

The troponin SMD model revealed substantial heterogeneity by visual and statistical tests. Subgroup analysis for cohorts of patients with shock vs. without shock, and by troponin assay could not identify the root of the heterogeneity (p-values for subgroup differences were 0.87 and 0.73, respectively). When we removed the Landesberg et al. study [41] because its SMD and adjusted OR were far greater than the rest of the studies, the estimate decreased to 0.49, but I2 only reduced to 60%. The forest plots of subgroup analyses are accessible in the Additional File 1.

Publication bias

Despite having few studies in each model, none of the funnels presented asymmetry. Considering the broad search, which included abstracts and conferences, we have no reason to think that any estimates have been systematically omitted (Fig. 5). We ran an Egger test for the SMD model, which has over ten studies, and was not statistically significant.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Funnel plots for a unadjusted mortality risk model; b adjusted mortality risk model; c troponin SMD model

Discussion

This systematic review with meta-analysis assessed the association between hs-cTn and short-term mortality in ICU/ED patients with sepsis according to the current definition. Although non-surviving patients showed a significant increase in early hs-cTn levels, this increase probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality after being controlled for confounding factors.

We anticipated that myocardial injury, assessed by hs-cTn, could improve prognostic value in septic patients. Acute myocardial injury in sepsis is multifactorial, involving direct inflammatory damage to cardiomyocytes and myocardial oxygen demand/supply mismatch (type 2 myocardial infarction), and can even lead to type 1 myocardial infarction (atherosclerotic plaque disruption) [42]. Altered kidney function can also decrease the cTn clearance after a cardiac insult in ICU patients [43]. In this context, because hs-cTn has a lower detection limit and lower normality cutoff than conventional cTn assays [6], we hypothesized that hs-cTn assays would allow earlier and better detection of myocardial injury in sepsis, which in turn would increase its relationship with mortality. In fact, a better prognostic value of hs-cTn compared with conventional cTn assays has been well-established in patients with acute myocardial infarction [44, 45], suggesting similar findings in other myocardial injury etiologies, such as sepsis.

Our results differ from previous meta-analyses, which have consistently shown a significant association between cTn and sepsis mortality [10,11,12]. However, two of these studies were published before Sepsis-3 and included a few studies using hs-cTn [10, 11]; all three did not exclusively include patients with organ dysfunction, which is mandatory in the current sepsis definition. Only one previous meta-analysis reported an effect estimate adjusted for confounders [11]. Furthermore, all these systematic reviews included studies that withdrew blood samples for cTn mostly early [12] or were exclusively early (hospital admission) [10, 11]. Thus, the present systematic review with meta-analysis represents an updated evidence synthesis that aligns with the current definitions of sepsis and recommended clinical practice [1, 5].

The stricter criteria of Sepsis-3 restricts sepsis diagnosis to patients with acute organ dysfunction [1], making the sepsis entity closer to severe sepsis in earlier criteria. Given that the Sepsis-3 diagnosis correlates with a higher risk of adverse events than earlier consensus diagnoses [2], comparing the predictive value of cTn from previous systematic reviews undertaken with older sepsis definitions is difficult. Moreover, the sensitivity of the cTn essay could significantly affect the biomarker's prognostic ability. For instance, Røsjø et al. reported a significant unadjusted association for hs-cTnT but not for 4th-gen cTnT and mortality [7]. Thus, the differences between the results of our systematic review and those of previous ones may be explained by the inclusion of more severely ill patients and higher sensitivity of cTn essays in our study than in others.

The effect of confounding factors on the association of interest was also considered in our study. Our meta-analysis of unadjusted mortality measures yielded an OR of 1.78 (95% CI: 1.41–2.25), which is comparable with the estimates reported in the literature (RR = 1.91 and HR = 1.35, respectively) [10,11,12]. Nevertheless, our adjusted model included some 4336 patients and showed an OR of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99–1.13), indicating that cTn loses much of its prognostic value once the data are controlled for well-known and usually assessed clinical factors. This finding sharply contrasts with the review by Sheyin et al. [10], in which the estimate remained significant in the multivariate group sensitivity analysis. Bessière et al. reported a similar finding, presenting an adjusted OR of 1.92 (95% CI: 1.35–2.74) for 791 patients [11]. However, none of the four studies included in this model fell under our PICOTS, and the most recent was published in 2010. Many of the adjustment factors are similar in our selected studies (age, severity scores, comorbidities, and biomarkers), which might imply that restricting studies to a setting of high-sensitivity assays and/or organ-dysfunction sepsis affects the prognostic ability of the cTn biomarker.

The evidence presented here helps physicians better interpret hs-cTn elevation in septic patients from a clinical perspective. Considering that cTn elevation is common in septic-shock patients [24], and that hs-cTn plasma levels were higher in non-survivors than surviving patients, this confirms that myocardial injury is an early and frequent condition in septic patients that later suffer clinical deterioration. Consequently, a high hs-cTn plasma value in a septic patient should alert clinicians of an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Although the association between high hs-cTn and mortality was no longer significant in the meta-analysis of adjusted estimates (wherein all included studies controlled for organ dysfunction scores), this could reflect that an elevated hs-cTn in sepsis is also related to global organ dysfunction and not only to myocardial injury alone. Thus, even without an independent association with mortality, hs-cTn levels are a valuable biomarker for identifying patients at higher risk of adverse outcomes and could play an important role in clinical risk stratification. Indeed, how hs-cTn temporal trajectories and peak values could affect sepsis prognosis and whether hs-cTn improvement translates into better outcomes for patients with sepsis need further investigation. Finally, although this study confirms the prognostic utility of a widely available biomarker, the prognostic significance of hs-cTn compared with other promising biomarkers in sepsis, such as suPAR [46] and proADM [47], could be the subject of further studies.

Limitations

While we found no evidence of publication bias in any of the models, the lack of specification of the hs-cTn assay limit of detection in many studies was a limitation for study selection in our review; in fact, many studies could have been discarded based on this issue. Also, the disparity in hs-cTn normality cutoff among primary studies might drastically impact the effect measures after dichotomization (elevated vs normal groups). Finally, a main limitation in the meta-analysis of adjusted models is the discrepancy in the confounder factors set and the omission of relevant variables in some regressions from primary studies.

We also recognize that using aggregate data limits the ability to fully control for confounding despite including available adjusted estimates. While individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis might offer better confounding control, it faces significant practical challenges and cannot eliminate residual confounding or address other types of bias inherent to observational studies [48]. Thus, our systematic review provides reliable evidence within the methodological constraints of evidence-based medicine.

On the other hand, chronic cardiovascular conditions may affect baseline high-sensitivity troponin levels in septic patients. However, most studies in this systematic review excluded patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease to minimize confounding. Future research should address how pre-existing cardiovascular conditions modify the prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin in sepsis.

Conclusions

This systematic review with meta-analysis provides a valuable, generalizable, and updated insight into the clinical practice of sepsis. Our study shows that elevated hs-cTn levels in septic patients are associated with an increased risk of short-term mortality, highlighting their utility as a widely available biomarker for risk classification in sepsis. Nevertheless, after controlling for confounding factors, the association between early hs-cTn elevation and short-term mortality is attenuated, suggesting that hs-cTn is not independently associated with mortality risk in sepsis under the current definition.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

ED:

Emergency department

HR:

Hazard ratio

hs-cTn:

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin

ICU:

Intensive care unit

RoB:

Risk of bias

RR:

Risk ratio

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

uOR:

Unadjusted odds ratio

References

  1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eriksson J, Eriksson M, Brattström O, et al. Comparison of the sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 definitions in severely injured trauma patients. J Crit Care. 2019;54:125–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.08.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Melaku EE, Urgie BM, Dessie F, Seid A, Abebe Z, Tefera AS. Determinants of mortality of patients admitted to the intensive care unit at debre berhan comprehensive specialized hospital: a retrospective cohort study. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2024;15:61–70. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S450502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ehrman RR, Sullivan AN, Favot MJ, et al. Pathophysiology, echocardiographic evaluation, biomarker findings, and prognostic implications of septic cardiomyopathy: a review of the literature. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2043-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1289–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Twerenbold R, Jaffe A, Reichlin T, Reiter M, Mueller C. High-sensitive troponin T measurements: what do we gain and what are the challenges? Eur Heart J. 2012;33(5):579–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr492.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Røsjø H, Varpula M, Hagve TA, et al. Circulating high sensitivity troponin T in severe sepsis and septic shock: distribution, associated factors, and relation to outcome. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(1):77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-2051-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. The Septic Heart. Current understanding of molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Chest. 2019;155(2):427–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frencken JF, Van Smeden M, Van De Groep K, et al. Etiology of myocardial injury in critically Ill patients with sepsis a cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19(5):773–80. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202106-689OC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheyin O, Davies O, Duan W, Perez X. The prognostic significance of troponin elevation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis. Heart Lung. 2015;44(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bessière F, Khenifer S, Dubourg J, Durieu I, Lega JC. Prognostic value of troponins in sepsis: a meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1181–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2902-3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zheng P, Wang X, Guo T, et al. Cardiac troponin as a prognosticator of mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Immun Inflamm Dis. 2023;11(9):e1014. https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.1014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrière-Steinert S, Jiménez JV, Araya SH, Kouyoumdjian T, Ramos-Rojas J, Gajardo AIJ. Early high-sensitivity troponin elevation in predicting short-term mortality in sepsis: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(10):e0301948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Riley RD, Moons KGM, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4597. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(6):864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS international sepsis definitions conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3B.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bekkering GE, Harris RJ, Thomas S, et al. How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and prostate or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis? Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(9):1017–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grooten WJA, Tseli E, Äng BO, et al. Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS—aspects of interrater agreement. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0050-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Foroutan F, Guyatt G, Zuk V, et al. GRADE Guidelines 28: use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Innocenti F, Palmieri V, Stefanone VT, et al. Comparison of troponin I levels versus myocardial dysfunction on prognosis in sepsis. Intern Emerg Med. 2022;17(1):223–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-021-02701-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasko B, Butz T, Prull MW, Liebeton J, Christ M, Trappe HJ. Earliest bedside assessment of hemodynamic parameters and cardiac biomarkers: their role as predictors of adverse outcome in patients with septic shock. Int J Med Sci. 2015;12(9):680–8. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.11720.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Antcliffe DB, Santhakumaran S, Orme RML, et al. Levosimendan in septic shock in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction: a subgroup analysis of the LeoPARDS randomised trial. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(10):1392–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05731-w.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Vallabhajosyula S, Sakhuja A, Geske JB, et al. Role of admission troponin-T and serial troponin-t testing in predicting outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(9):e005930. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.005930.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Vallabhajosyula S, Sakhuja A, Geske JB, et al. Clinical profile and outcomes of acute cardiorenal syndrome type-5 in sepsis: an eight-year cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):e0190965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190965.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jendoubi A, Jerbi S, Maamar E, et al. Prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin I in patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2019;23(7):320–5. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu KZ, Xu P, Li JJ, Zuo AF, Wang SB, Han F. Predictors and nomogram of in-hospital mortality in sepsis-induced myocardial injury: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023;23(1):230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02189-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang H, Gao YX, Wu YN, Li C, Duan J. Association between plasma adiponectin levels and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in sepsis patients. J Crit Care. 2020;60:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim JS, Kim YJ, Kim M, Ryoo SM, Kim WY. Association between right ventricle dysfunction and poor outcome in patients with septic shock. Heart. 2020;106(21):1665–71. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Masson S, Caironi P, Fanizza C, et al. Sequential N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measurements during albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock*. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(4):707. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Symons MJ, Moore DT. Hazard rate ratio and prospective epidemiological studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(9):893–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00443-2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hedges LV. Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat. 1981;6(2):107–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. De Geer L, Engvall J, Oscarsson A. Strain echocardiography in septic shock - a comparison with systolic and diastolic function parameters, cardiac biomarkers and outcome. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0857-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Landesberg G, Gilon D, Meroz Y, et al. Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(7):895–903. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Landesberg G, Levin PD, Gilon D, et al. Myocardial dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock: no correlation with inflammatory cytokines in real-life clinical setting. Chest. 2015;148(1):93–102. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-2259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Higgins JPT, Cochrane Collaboration, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020

  39. Sirvent JM, Ferri C, Baró A, Murcia C, Lorencio C. Fluid balance in sepsis and septic shock as a determining factor of mortality. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(2):186–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lundberg OHM, Bergenzaun L, Rydén J, Rosenqvist M, Melander O, Chew MS. Adrenomedullin and endothelin-1 are associated with myocardial injury and death in septic shock patients. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1361-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Landesberg G, Jaffe AS, Gilon D, et al. Troponin elevation in severe sepsis and septic shock: the role of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and right ventricular dilatation*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(4):790–800. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. DeFilippis AP, Chapman AR, Mills NL, et al. Assessment and treatment of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction and acute nonischemic myocardial injury. Circulation. 2019;140(20):1661–78. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040631.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Circulation. 2018;138(20):e618–51. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weber M, Bazzino O, Navarro Estrada JL, de Miguel R, Salzberg S, Fuselli JJ, Liebetrau C, Woelken M, Moellmann H, Nef H, Hamm C. Improved diagnostic and prognostic performance of a new high-sensitive troponin T assay in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J. 2011;162(1):81–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2011.04.007.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hochholzer W, Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Stelzig C, Hochholzer K, Meissner J, Haaf P, Schaub N, Steuer S, Bassetti S, Reiter M, Roost K, Freidank H, Winkler K, Mueller C. Incremental value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T for risk prediction in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Clin Chem. 2011;57(9):1318–26. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.162073.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang Q, Xiong H, Yan P, Shuai T, Liu J, Zhu L, Lu J, Yang K, Liu J. The diagnostic and prognostic value of suPAR in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock. 2020;53(4):416–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000001434.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Valeriani E, Falletta A, Pastori D, Porfidia A, Mastroianni CM, Di Bari S, Motta E, Pignatelli P, Oliva A. Midregional-proAdrenomedullin as a prognostic tool in sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2024;54(9):e14225. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang H, Chen Y, Lin Y, Abesig J, Wu IX, Tam W. The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review. BMJ. 2021;19(373):n736. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n736.PMID:33875446;PMCID:PMC8054226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by the Government of Chile, through the grant: Initiation in research FONDECYT grant 11241548, National Agency of Research and Development (https://anid.cl/about-us/); Awarded to Abraham I. J. Gajardo. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, publication decisions, or manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: Santiago Ferrière-Steinert, Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez, José Ramos Rojas. Formal analysis: Santiago Ferrière-Steinert, Joaquín Valenzuela Jiménez, Sebastián Heskia Araya, Thomas Kouyoumdjian Carvajal, Juan Nicolás Medel. Project administration: Santiago Ferrière-Steinert, Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez. Resources: Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez. Supervision: Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez. Validation: Santiago Ferrière-Steinert, Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez, Juan Nicolás Medel. Writing – original draft: Santiago Ferrière-Steinert, Joaquín Valenzuela Jiménez, Sebastián Heskia Araya, Thomas Kouyoumdjian, Juan Nicolás Medel. Writing – review & editing: Abraham I. J. Gajardo Cortez, José Ramos-Rojas, Juan Nicolás Medel.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham I. J. Gajardo.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflict of interest related to this publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gajardo, A.I.J., Ferrière-Steinert, S., Valenzuela Jiménez, J. et al. Early high-sensitivity troponin elevation and short-term mortality in sepsis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Crit Care 29, 76 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05249-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05249-2

Keywords