Dataset Information

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions in Predicting Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

ABSTRACT: Background:Sepsis definitions have evolved, but there is a lack of consensus over adoption of the most recent definition, Sepsis-3. We sought to compare Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in the classification of patients with sepsis and mortality risk at 30 days. Methods:We used the following definitions: Sepsis-2 (?2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria + infection), Sepsis-3 (prescreening by quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA] of ?2 of 3 criteria followed by the complete score change ?2 + infection), and an amended Sepsis-3 definition, iqSOFA (qSOFA ?2 + infection). We used ??2 or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, receiver-operator characteristic curves, and survival analysis. Results:We enrolled 176 patients (95% in an intensive care unit, 38.6% female, median age 61.4 years). Of 105 patients classified by Sepsis-2 as having sepsis, 80 had sepsis per Sepsis-3 or iqSOFA (kappa = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.82). Twenty-five (14.8%) died (20 of 100 with sepsis per Sepsis-2 [20%], and 20 of 77 [26.0%] with sepsis per Sepsis-3 or iqSOFA). Results for Sepsis-3 and iqSOFA were identical. The area under the curve of receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves for identifying those who died were 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.68) for Sepsis-2, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.93) for Sepsis-3, and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79) for iqSOFA (P < .01). Hazard ratios for death associated with sepsis were greatest for sepsis or septic shock per Sepsis-3. Conclusions:Sepsis-3 and iqSOFA were better at predicting death than Sepsis-2. Using the SOFA score might add little advantage compared with the simpler iqSOFA score.

SUBMITTER: Poutsiaka DD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6602380 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions in Predicting Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

Poutsiaka Debra D DD Porto Maura C MC Perry Whitney A WA Hudcova Jana J Tybor David J DJ Hadley Susan S Doron Shira S Reich John A JA Snydman David R DR Nasraway Stanley A SA

Open forum infectious diseases 20190605 7

<h4>Background</h4>Sepsis definitions have evolved, but there is a lack of consensus over adoption of the most recent definition, Sepsis-3. We sought to compare Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in the classification of patients with sepsis and mortality risk at 30 days.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the following definitions: Sepsis-2 (≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria + infection), Sepsis-3 (prescreening by quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA] of ≥2 of 3 criteria followed by the co ...[more]

PMID: 31281865

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.

Project description:IntroductionFever is frequently observed in critically ill patients. An independent association of fever with increased mortality has been observed in non-neurological critically ill patients with mixed febrile etiology. The association of fever and antipyretics with mortality, however, may be different between infective and non-infective illness.MethodsWe designed a prospective observational study to investigate the independent association of fever and the use of antipyretic treatments with mortality in critically ill patients with and without sepsis. We included 1,425 consecutive adult critically ill patients (without neurological injury) requiring >48 hours intensive care admitted in 25 ICUs. We recorded four-hourly body temperature and all antipyretic treatments until ICU discharge or 28 days after ICU admission, whichever occurred first. For septic and non-septic patients, we separately assessed the association of maximum body temperature during ICU stay (MAXICU) and the use of antipyretic treatments with 28-day mortality.ResultsWe recorded body temperature 63,441 times. Antipyretic treatment was given 4,863 times to 737 patients (51.7%). We found that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen independently increased 28-day mortality for septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 2.61, P=0.028, acetaminophen: 2.05, P=0.01), but not for non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 0.22, P=0.15, acetaminophen: 0.58, P=0.63). Application of physical cooling did not associate with mortality in either group. Relative to the reference range (MAXICU ≥ 39.5°C increased risk of 28-day mortality in non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P=0.01), but not in septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, P=0.11) [corrected].ConclusionsIn non-septic patients, high fever (≥39.5°C) independently associated with mortality, without association of administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen with mortality. In contrast, in septic patients, administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen independently associated with 28-day mortality, without association of fever with mortality. These findings suggest that fever and antipyretics may have different biological or clinical or both implications for patients with and without sepsis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00940654.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of coagulopathy, which was responsible for poor outcomes, was commonly seen among patients with sepsis. In the current study, we aim to determine whether the presence of sepsis-associated coagulopathy (SAC) predicts the clinical outcomes among critically ill patients with postoperative sepsis.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study by including patients with sepsis admitted to surgical ICU of Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared with respect to the presence of SAC. Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied to calculate survival rate, and Log-rank test was carried out to compare the differences between two groups. Furthermore, multivariable Cox and logistic and linear regression analysis were performed to assess the relationship between SAC and clinical outcomes, including hospital mortality, development of septic shock, and length of hospital stay (LOS), respectively. Additionally, both sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to further testify the robustness of our findings.ResultsA total of 175 patients were included in the current study. Among all included patients, 41.1% (72/175) ICU patients were identified as having SAC. In-hospital mortality rates were significantly higher in the SAC group when compared to that of the No SAC group (37.5% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.001). By performing univariable and multivariable regression analyses, presence of SAC was demonstrated to significantly correlate with an increased in-hospital mortality for patients with sepsis in surgical ICU [Hazard ratio (HR), 3.75; 95% Confidence interval (CI), 1.90-7.40; p < 0.001]. Meanwhile, a complication of SAC was found to be the independent predictor of the development of septic shock [Odds ratio (OR), 4.11; 95% CI, 1.81-9.32; p = 0.001], whereas it was not significantly associated with prolonged hospital LOS (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.14; p = 0.743).ConclusionThe presence of SAC was significantly associated with increased risk of in-hospital death and septic shock among postoperative patients with sepsis admitted to ICU. Moreover, there was no statistical difference of hospital LOS between the SAC and no SAC groups.

Dataset Information

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions in Predicting Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

Publications

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions in Predicting Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets