Dataset Information

Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described. Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality." Study Selection:Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time. Results:Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P?

SUBMITTER: Tan B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450287 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Tan Bobby B Wong Judith Ju-Ming JJ Sultana Rehena R Koh Janine Cynthia Jia Wen JCJW Jit Mark M Mok Yee Hui YH Lee Jan Hau JH

JAMA pediatrics 20190401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described.<h4>Objective</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs.<h4>Data sources</h4>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumul ...[more]

PMID: 30742207

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the performance of three methods of identifying children with severe sepsis and septic shock from the Virtual Pediatric Systems database to prospective screening using consensus criteria. DESIGN:Observational cohort study. SETTING:Single-center PICU. PATIENTS:Children admitted to the PICU in the period between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2014. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:During the study period, all PICU patients were prospectively screened daily for sepsis, and those meeting consensus criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock on manual chart review were entered into the sepsis registry. Of 7,459 patients admitted to the PICU during the study period, 401 met consensus criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (reference standard cohort). Within Virtual Pediatric Systems, patients identified using "Martin" (n = 970; ? = 0.43; positive predictive value = 34%; F1 = 0.48) and "Angus" International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification codes (n = 1387; ? = 0.28; positive predictive value = 22%; F1 = 0.34) showed limited agreement with the reference standard cohort. By comparison, explicit International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis (995.92) and septic shock (785.52) identified a smaller, more accurate cohort of children (n = 515; ? = 0.61; positive predictive value = 57%; F1 = 0.64). PICU mortality was 8% in the reference standard cohort and the cohort identified by explicit codes; age, illness severity scores, and resource utilization did not differ between groups. Analysis of discrepancies between the reference standard and Virtual Pediatric Systems explicit codes revealed that prospective screening missed 66 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. After including these patients in the reference standard cohort as an exploratory analysis, agreement between the cohort of patients identified by Virtual Pediatric Systems explicit codes and the reference standard cohort improved (? = 0.73; positive predictive value = 70%; F1 = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS:Children with severe sepsis and septic shock are best identified in the Virtual Pediatric Systems database using explicit diagnosis codes for severe sepsis and septic shock. The accuracy of these codes and level of clinical detail available in the Virtual Pediatric Systems database allow for sophisticated epidemiologic studies of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock in this large, multicenter database.

Project description:The role of recombinant activated protein C (aPC) during sepsis is still controversial. It showed anti-inflammatory effect and improved the microvascular perfusion in experimental models of septic shock. The present study was aimed at testing the hypothesis that recombinant aPC therapy improves the microcirculation during severe sepsis.Prospective observational study on patients admitted in a 12-beds intensive care unit of a university hospital from July 2010 to December 2011, with severe sepsis and at least two sepsis-induced organ failures occurring within 48 hours from the onset of sepsis, who received an infusion of aPC (24 mcg/kg/h for 96 hours) (aPC group). Patients with contraindications to aPC administration were also monitored (no-aPC group).At baseline (before starting aPC infusion, T0), after 24 hours (T1a), 48 hours (T1b), 72 hours (T1c) and 6 hours after the end of aPC infusion (T2), general clinical and hemodynamic parameters were collected and the sublingual microcirculation was evaluated with sidestream dark-field imaging. Total vessel density (TVD), perfused vessel density (PVD), De Backer score, microvascular flow index (MFIs), the proportion of perfused vessels (PPV) and the flow heterogeneity index (HI) were calculated for small vessels. The perfused boundary region (PBR) was measured as an index of glycocalyx damage. Variables were compared between time points and groups using non parametric or parametric statistical tests, as appropriate.In the 13 aPC patients mean arterial pressure (MAP), base excess, lactate, PaO2/FiO2 and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score significantly improved over time, while CI and ITBVI did not change. MFIs, TVD, PVD, PPV significantly increased over time and the HI decreased (p?<?0.05 in all cases), while the PBR did not change. No-aPC patients (n?=?9) did not show any change in the microcirculation over time. A positive correlation was found between MFIs and MAP. TVD, PVD and De Backer score negatively correlated with norepinephrine dose, and the SOFA score negatively correlated with MFIs, TVD and PVD.aPC significantly improves the microcirculation in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock.NCT01806428.

Project description:IntroductionThe benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.MethodsPatients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.ResultsA total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).ConclusionsWidespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.

Dataset Information

Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets