Dataset Information

Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Septic shock is the most severe form of sepsis, in which profound underlying abnormalities in circulatory and cellular/metabolic parameters lead to substantially increased mortality. A clear understanding and up-to-date assessment of the burden and epidemiology of septic shock are needed to help guide resource allocation and thus ultimately improve patient care. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore to provide a recent evaluation of the frequency of septic shock in intensive care units (ICUs) and associated ICU and hospital mortality.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2005 to 20 February 2018 for observational studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of septic shock. Four reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled frequency of septic shock diagnosed at admission and during the ICU stay and to estimate septic shock mortality in the ICU, hospital, and at 28 or 30?days.

Results

The literature search identified 6291 records of which 71 articles met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of septic shock was estimated at 10.4% (95% CI 5.9 to 16.1%) in studies reporting values for patients diagnosed at ICU admission and at 8.3% (95% CI 6.1 to 10.7%) in studies reporting values for patients diagnosed at any time during the ICU stay. ICU mortality was 37.3% (95% CI 31.5 to 43.5%), hospital mortality 39.0% (95% CI 34.4 to 43.9%), and 28-/30-day mortality 36.7% (95% CI 32.8 to 40.8%). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed.

Conclusions

Our literature review reaffirms the continued common occurrence of septic shock and estimates a high mortality of around 38%. The high level of heterogeneity observed in this review may be driven by variability in defining and applying the diagnostic criteria, as well as differences in treatment and care across settings and countries.

SUBMITTER: Vincent JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6545004 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied.ResultsFour thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6-36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4-41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5-27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0-37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5-35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7-33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1-34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8-3.3%.ConclusionTrends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.

Project description:Background Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China. Methods We Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Results Our search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I2 = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%–32.8%, I2 = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I2 = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%–46.0%, I2 = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed. Conclusions Our findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07543-8.

Project description:BackgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).Material and methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.ResultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.ConclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.

Project description:IntroductionMost experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.ResultsWe identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.ConclusionIn minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.