Back

Prognostic Value of Mean Platelet Volume in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Trujillo-Vega, F.; Lopez-Delgado, P. A.

2026-06-01 emergency medicine
10.64898/2026.05.29.26354453 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background: Mean platelet volume (MPV) is a simple, low-cost biomarker that reflects platelet activation. Its prognostic value in septic shock remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether MPV at intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with hospital mortality in patients with septic shock. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults with septic shock (Sepsis-3 criteria) admitted to a single ICU. MPV, severity scores (SOFA, APACHE II, SAPS II), procalcitonin, and clinical data were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Spearman correlation, univariate and multivariate logistic regression (with Firth's correction), ROC curves, and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included; mortality was 58.6%. MPV did not differ between non-survivors and survivors (13.09 {+/-} 1.37 vs. 12.66 {+/-} 1.45 fL, p = 0.259). MPV showed a weak correlation with procalcitonin ({rho} = 0.394, p = 0.002) but not with severity scores. In multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, SOFA and comorbidity count, MPV was not an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.075, 95% CI 0.682-1.755, p = 0.749). The area under the ROC curve for MPV was 0.598 (95% CI 0.444-0.752), significantly lower than that of SOFA (0.837) and procalcitonin (0.836). Subgroup analyses showed no significant association between MPV and mortality in any stratum. Conclusions: In this cohort of septic shock patients, MPV at ICU admission was not associated with hospital mortality and had poor discriminative ability. Widely used severity scores and procalcitonin remain superior prognostic markers. MPV should not be used as a prognostic tool in septic shock. Keywords: Septic shock, Mean platelet volume, Mortality, SOFA, Procalcitonin, Biomarker

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
20.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 11%
7.5%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.6%
6
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.8%
7
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
9
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
10
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
11
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
12
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
14
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
Journal of Leukocyte Biology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
16
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
17
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
International Immunopharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
20
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
23
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%