Retrospective study finds elevated renal and hepatic markers predict mortality in heat-related illness patients, highlighting critical clinical features.
Background and Objectives: With rising global temperatures, heat-related illness (HRI) poses a growing clinical challenge, often complicated by rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney injury (AKI), and hepatic dysfunction. Chronic medication (CM) use and pre-existing comorbidities may also have an impact on outcomes. With a focus on comorbid conditions, CM use, and laboratory predictors of survival, this study aimed to assess the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients admitted with HRI. Method: A retrospective observational study of 54 patients who were admitted to a tertiary care hospital with HRI was carried out. The following information was gathered and compared between survivors and non-survivors: demographics, comorbidities, CMs, clinical features, laboratory parameters, treatment, and outcomes. Results: Overall mortality was 37%. Non-survivors had significantly higher heart rates ( P = .008) and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores ( P < .001), indicating greater systemic involvement. Laboratory findings showed markedly elevated creatine phosphokinase in non-survivors, consistent with severe rhabdomyolysis, and higher rates of AKI (37%). Serum creatinine ( P = .004) and AST ( P = .02) were also significantly elevated, reflecting renal and hepatic dysfunction. In contrast, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease) and CM use were common but did not significantly influence survival. Supportive management included intravenous fluids, electrolyte correction, vasopressors, and cooling interventions. Conclusion: Neurological impairment, tachycardia, elevated CPK, creatinine, and AST levels were key predictors of mortality in HRI, while comorbidities and CM use were not. Early recognition of complications and timely supportive care, including standardised cooling methods, remains essential to improve outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parikh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: