Advertisement

Intensive Care Medicine

, 35:2151 | Cite as

Multicenter comparison of cortisol as measured by different methods in samples of patients with septic shock

  • Josef Briegel
  • Charles L. Sprung
  • Djillali Annane
  • Mervyn Singer
  • Didier Keh
  • Rui Moreno
  • Patrick Möhnle
  • Yoram Weiss
  • Alexander Avidan
  • Frank M. Brunkhorst
  • Fritz Fiedler
  • Michael Vogeser
  • for the CORTICUS Study Group
Brief Report

Abstract

Purpose

To compare inter-laboratory and inter-assay measurements of total cortisol in patients with septic shock and to evaluate current recommendations for diagnosis of corticosteroid insufficiency in septic shock.

Methods

In the multinational CORTICUS study duplicate serum samples were taken before and after corticotropin stimulation tests in patients with septic shock. Serum cortisol was measured in paired samples, one being measured by the chemical laboratory of each participating site and the other by a central laboratory using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Cortisol levels measured by tandem mass spectrometry were used as a ‘gold standard’ reference method in a subset of samples.

Results

A total of 425 corticotropin tests (850 cortisol samples) were available for comparison of local and central laboratory measurements. The concordance correlation coefficient between central laboratoty immunoassay and local hospital assays was 0.98 (CI 0.97–0.99) when the immunoassay of one manufacturer was used and 0.60 (CI 0.54–0.65) when immunoassays of different manufacturers were used. The comparison with the reference method of mass spectrometry showed concordance correlation coefficients ranging from 0.43 to 0.97 depending on the assay under study. Diagnosis of corticosteroid insufficiency was diverging due to inter-assay variations in up to 27% of cases.

Conclusion

In samples taken from patients in septic shock, there was a high inter-assay variation of total serum cortisol. Comparisons with a reference method revealed both over- and underestimations of true cortisol levels. These inter-assay variations in samples of patients with septic shock complicate the diagnosis of corticosteroid insufficiency.

Keywords

Septic shock Sepsis Hydrocortisone Glucocorticoids Method Comparison Immunoassay ACTH Corticotropin stimulation Serum cortisol CIRCI 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the European Commission contract QLK2-CT-2000-00589, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and the International Sepsis Forum and the Gorham Foundation. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim/Penzberg, Germany provided the ElecsysTM Cortisol immunoassay. The EU Commission and other sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study or the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data or in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

134_2009_1627_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (231 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 230 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Marik PE, Pastores SM, Annane D, Meduri GU, Sprung CL, Arlt W, Keh D, Briegel J, Beishuizen A, Dimopoulou I, Tsagarakis S, Singer M, Chrousos GP, Zaloga G, Bokhari F, Vogeser M, American College of Critical Care Medicine (2008) Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients: consensus statements from an international task force by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 36:1937–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper MS, Stewart PM (2003) Corticosteroid insufficiency in acutely ill patients. N Engl J Med 348:727–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper MS, Stewart PM (2007) Adrenal insufficiency in critical illness. J Intensive Care Med 22:348–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rothwell PM, Udwadia ZF, Lawler PG (1991) Cortisol response to corticotropin and survival in septic shock. Lancet 337:582–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annane D, Sébille V, Troché G, Raphaël JC, Gajdos P, Bellissant E (2000) A 3-level prognostic classification in septic shock based on cortisol levels and cortisol response to corticotropin. JAMA 283:1038–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts RF, Roberts WL (2004) Performance characteristics of five automated serum cortisol immunoassays. Clin Biochem 37:489–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tunn S, Pappert G, Willnow P, Krieg M (1990) Multicentre evaluation of an enzyme-immunoassay for cortisol determination. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 28:929–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, Moreno R, Singer M, Freivogel K, Weiss YG, Benbenishty J, Kalenka A, Forst H, Laterre PF, Reinhart K, Cuthbertson BH, Payen D, Briegel J, CORTICUS Study Group (2008) Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 358:111–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stroud LR, Solomon C, Shenassa E, Papandonatos G, Niaura R, Lipsitt LP, Lewinn K, Buka SL (2007) Long-term stability of maternal prenatal steroid hormones from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project: still valid after all these years. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32:140–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vogeser M, Briegel J, Jacob K (2001) Determination of serum cortisol by isotope-dilution liquid-chromatography electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry with on-line extraction. Clin Chem Lab Med 39:944–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brotherton J, Rothbart B (1990) Serum cortisol in adrenal hirsutism as estimated by five different methods. J Steroid Biochem 36:641–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Brabandere VI, Thienpont LM, Stöckl D, De Leenheer AP (1995) Three routine methods for serum cortisol evaluated by comparison with an isotope dilution gas chromatography–mass spectrometry method. Clin Chem 41:1781–1783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen J, Ward G, Prins J, Jones M, Venkatesh B (2006) Variability of cortisol assays can confound the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency in the critically ill population. Intensive Care Med 32:1901–1905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diamandis EP (2004) Immunoassay interference: a relatively rare but still important problem. Clin Biochem 37:331–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Azziz R, Bradley E, Huth J, Boots LR, Parker CR, Zacur HA (1990) Acute adrenocorticotropin-(1–24) (ACTH) adrenal stimulation in eumenorrheic women: reproducibility and effect of ACTH dose, subject weight, and sampling time. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 70:1273–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM (2008) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 34:17–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, Gea-Banacloche J, Keh D, Marshall JC, Parker MM, Ramsay G, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL, Levy MM, Surviving Sepsis Campaign Management Guidelines Committee (2004) Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 32:858–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Binkley N, Krueger D, Cowgill CS, Plum L, Lake E, Hansen KE, DeLuca HF, Drezner MK (2004) Assay variation confounds the diagnosis of hypovitaminosis D: a call for standardization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:3152–3157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lacey JM, Minutti CZ, Magera MJ, Tauscher AL, Casetta B, McCann M, Lymp J, Hahn SH, Rinaldo P, Matern D (2004) Improved specificity of newborn screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia by second-tier steroid profiling using tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 50:621–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minutti CZ, Lacey JM, Magera MJ, Hahn SH, McCann M, Schulze A, Cheillan D, Dorche C, Chace DH, Lymp JF, Zimmerman D, Rinaldo P, Matern D (2004) Steroid profiling by tandem mass spectrometry improves the positive predictive value of newborn screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:3687–3693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Copyright jointly hold by Springer and ESICM 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Briegel
    • 1
  • Charles L. Sprung
    • 2
  • Djillali Annane
    • 3
  • Mervyn Singer
    • 4
  • Didier Keh
    • 5
  • Rui Moreno
    • 6
  • Patrick Möhnle
    • 1
  • Yoram Weiss
    • 2
  • Alexander Avidan
    • 2
  • Frank M. Brunkhorst
    • 7
  • Fritz Fiedler
    • 8
  • Michael Vogeser
    • 9
  • for the CORTICUS Study Group
  1. 1.Klinik für AnästhesiologieKlinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care MedicineHadassah Hebrew University Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Hôpital R. PoincaréUniversity of Versailles SQYGarchesFrance
  4. 4.University College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Universitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie m.S. Operative IntensivmedizinCharité UniversitätsmedizinBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Hospital de St. António dos CapuchosLisbonPortugal
  7. 7.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineFriedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany
  8. 8.Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum MannheimMannheimGermany
  9. 9.Institut für Klinische ChemieKlinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations