Korean Registry for Improving Sepsis Survival (KISS): Protocol for a Multicenter Cohort of Adult Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7113452 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Korean Registry for Improving Sepsis Survival (KISS): Protocol for a Multicenter Cohort of Adult Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock.
Kim Jong Hun JH Ku Nam Su NS Kim Youn Jeong YJ Kim Hong Bin HB Seok Hyeri H Lee Dong Gun DG Lee Jin Seo JS Jeong Su Jin SJ Choi Jung Hyun JH Sohn Jang Wook JW Kim Min Ja MJ Park Dae Won DW
Infection & chemotherapy 20200301 1
Sepsis is one of the significant causes of morbidity and mortality. The burden caused by sepsis has continued to increase in recent years in the Korea, highlighting the urgent need for the implementation of strategies to improve sepsis treatment outcomes. We therefore designed a web-based sepsis registry system ("Korean Registry for Improving Sepsis Survival" [KISS]) protocol to be used in hospitals in the Korea for evaluation of the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of patients with sep ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC7095388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCurrent information on the characteristics of patients who develop sepsis may help in identifying opportunities to improve outcomes. Most recent studies of sepsis epidemiology have focused on changes in incidence or have used administrative data sets that provided limited patient-level data.ObjectiveTo describe sepsis epidemiology in adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study reviewed the medical records, death certificates, and hospital discharge data of adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who were discharged from the hospital between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. The convenience sample was obtained from hospitals in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Emerging Infections Program in 10 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee). Patients 18 years and older with discharge diagnosis codes for severe sepsis or septic shock were randomly selected. Data were analyzed between May 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe population's demographic characteristics, health care exposures, and sepsis-associated infections and pathogens were described, and risk factors for death within 30 days after sepsis diagnosis were assessed.ResultsAmong 1078 adult patients with sepsis (569 men [52.8%]; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 53-75 years]), 973 patients (90.3%) were classified as having community-onset sepsis (ie, sepsis diagnosed within 3 days of hospital admission). In total, 654 patients (60.7%) had health care exposures before their hospital admission for sepsis; 260 patients (24.1%) had outpatient encounters in the 7 days before admission, and 447 patients (41.5%) received medical treatment, including antimicrobial drugs, chemotherapy, wound care, dialysis, or surgery, in the 30 days before admission. A pathogen associated with sepsis was found in 613 patients (56.9%); the most common pathogens identified were Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Clostridioides difficile. After controlling for other factors, an association was found between underlying comorbidities, such as cirrhosis (odds ratio, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.03-6.32), immunosuppression (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.81-3.52), vascular disease (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.10-2.15), and 30-day mortality.Conclusions and relevanceMost adults experienced sepsis onset outside of the hospital and had recent encounters with the health care system. A sepsis-associated pathogen was identified in more than half of patients. Future efforts to improve sepsis outcomes may benefit from examination of health maintenance practices and recent health care exposures as potential opportunities among high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7341174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a common and frequently fatal condition. Human recombinant activated protein C (APC) has been introduced to reduce the high risk of death associated with severe sepsis or septic shock. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2007.ObjectivesWe assessed the benefits and harms of APC for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (2010 to June 2012); EMBASE (2010 to June 2012); BIOSIS (1965 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012) and LILACS (1982 to June 2012). There was no language restriction.Selection criteriaWe included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of APC for severe sepsis or septic shock in adults and children. We excluded studies on neonates. We considered all-cause mortality at day 28 and at the end of study follow up, and hospital mortality as the primary outcomes.Data collection and analysisWe independently performed trial selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a random-effects model.Main resultsWe identified one new randomized clinical trial in this update which includes six randomized clinical trials involving 6781 participants in total, five randomized clinical trials in adult (N = 6307) and one randomized clinical trial in paediatric (N = 474) participants. All trials had high risk of bias and were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. APC compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality at day 28 compared with placebo (780/3435 (22.7%) versus 767/3346 (22.9%); RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.16; I(2) = 56%). APC did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality (393/1767 (22.2%) versus 379/1710 (22.1%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; I(2) = 20%). APC was associated with an increased risk of serious bleeding (113/3424 (3.3%) versus 74/3343 (2.2%); RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.94; I(2) = 0%). APC did not significantly affect serious adverse events (463/3334 (13.9%) versus 439/3302 (13.2%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; I(2) = 0%). Trial sequential analyses showed that more trials do not seem to be needed for reliable conclusions regarding these outcomes.Authors' conclusionsThis updated review found no evidence suggesting that APC should be used for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC seems to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding. The drug company behind APC, Eli Lilly, has announced the discontinuation of all ongoing clinical trials using this drug for treating patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. APC should not be used for sepsis or septic shock outside randomized clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6464614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal treatment of symptomatic paravalvular leak (PVL) remains controversial between transcatheter closure (TC) and surgery. This large-scale study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of the patients who underwent reoperation or TC of PVLs.Methods and resultsA total of 335 (men, 209 [62.4%]; mean age, 58.15±12.77 years) patients who underwent treatment of PVL at 3 tertiary centers between January 2002 and December 2021 were included. Echocardiographic features, procedure details, and in-hospital or long-term outcomes were assessed. The primary end point was defined as the all-cause death during follow-up. The regression models were adjusted by applying the inverse probability weighted approach to reduce treatment selection bias. The initial management strategy was TC in 171 (51%) patients and surgery in 164 (49%) cases. Three hundred cases (89.6%) had mitral PVL, and 35 (10.4%) had aortic PVL. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 52.03±10.79%. Technical (78.9 versus 76.2%; P=0.549) and procedural success (73.7 versus 65.2%; P=0.093) were similar between both groups. In both univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, the in-hospital mortality rate in the overall population was significantly higher (15.9 versus 4.7%) in the surgery group compared with the TC group (unadjusted odds ratio, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.75-5.88]; P=0.001; and adjusted odds ratio (inverse probability-weighted), 4.55 [95% CI, 2.27-10.0]; P<0.001). However, the long-term mortality rate in the overall population did not differ between the surgery group and the TC group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.59-1.25]; P=0.435; and adjusted HR (inverse probability-weighted), 1.11 [95% CI, 0.67-1.81]; P=0.679).ConclusionsThe current data suggest that percutaneous closure of PVL was associated with lower early and comparable long-term mortality rates compared with surgery.
| S-EPMC10863827 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2911744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBaseline characteristics and disease severity of patients with septic shock according to the new Sepsis-3 definition may differ from patients that only comply with the Sepsis-2 definition. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on the ICU of a Belgian tertiary care facility to seek out differences between these two patient groups and to identify variables associated with no longer satisfying the latest definition of septic shock.ResultsOf 1198 patients with septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 consensus definition, 233 (19.4%) did not have septic shock according to the Sepsis-3 shock definition. These patients more often had medical admission reasons and a respiratory infection as cause for the septic shock. They less often had surgery on admission and were less likely to have chronic liver disease (5.6% vs 16.2%, absolute difference 10.6% (95% CI 6.4-14.1%). Patients with septic shock only according to the old definition had significant lower APACHE II and SOFA scores and lower hospital mortality (31.6% vs 55.3%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, following variables were associated with Sepsis-2 shock patients no longer being defined as such by the Sepsis-3 definition: respiratory infection (OR 1.485 (95% CI 1.56-2.089), p = 0.023), a medical admission reason (OR 1.977 (95% CI 1.396-2.800) and chronic liver disease (OR 0.345 (95% CI 0.181-0.660), p < 0.001).ConclusionsOne in five patients with septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 consensus definition is no longer considered as such when the Sepsis-3 shock criteria are applied. A medical admission reason, a respiratory infection and absence of chronic liver disease are independently associated with no longer being identified as having septic shock by the Sepsis-3 criteria.
| S-EPMC8557229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionData are sparse as to whether obesity influences the risk of death in critically ill patients with septic shock. We sought to examine the possible impact of obesity, as assessed by body mass index (BMI), on hospital mortality in septic shock patients.MethodsWe performed a nested cohort study within a retrospective database of patients with septic shock conducted in 28 medical centers in Canada, United States and Saudi Arabia between 1996 and 2008. Patients were classified according to the World Health Organization criteria for BMI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between obesity and hospital mortality.ResultsOf the 8,670 patients with septic shock, 2,882 (33.2%) had height and weight data recorded at ICU admission and constituted the study group. Obese patients were more likely to have skin and soft tissue infections and less likely to have pneumonia with predominantly Gram-positive microorganisms. Crystalloid and colloid resuscitation fluids in the first six hours were given at significantly lower volumes per kg in the obese and very obese patients compared to underweight and normal weight patients (for crystalloids: 55.0 ± 40.1 ml/kg for underweight, 43.2 ± 33.4 for normal BMI, 37.1 ± 30.8 for obese and 27.7 ± 22.0 for very obese). Antimicrobial doses per kg were also different among BMI groups. Crude analysis showed that obese and very obese patients had lower hospital mortality compared to normal weight patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.97 for obese and OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85 for very obese patients). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and sepsis interventions, the association became non-significant (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.02 for obese and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.04 for very obese).ConclusionsThe obesity paradox (lower mortality in the obese) documented in other populations is also observed in septic shock. This may be related in part to differences in patient characteristics. However, the true paradox may lie in the variations in the sepsis interventions, such as the administration of resuscitation fluids and antimicrobial therapy. Considering the obesity epidemic and its impact on critical care, further studies are warranted to examine whether a weight-based approach to common therapeutic interventions in septic shock influences outcome.
| S-EPMC3672731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sex differences in the in-hospital management of sepsis exist. Previous studies either included patients with sepsis that was defined using previous definitions of sepsis or evaluated the 3-h bundle therapy. Therefore, this study sought to assess sex differences in 1-h bundle therapy and in-hospital management among patients with sepsis and septic shock, defined according to the Sepsis-3 definitions. This observational study used data from Korean Shock Society (KoSS) registry, a prospective multicenter sepsis registry. Adult patients with sepsis between June 2018 and December 2021 were included in this study. The primary outcome was adherence to 1-h bundle therapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Among 3264 patients with sepsis, 3129 were analyzed. PSM yielded 2380 matched patients (1190 men and 1190 women). After PSM, 1-h bundle therapy was performed less frequently in women than in men (13.0% vs. 19.2%; p < 0.001). Among the bundle therapy components, broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered less frequently in women than in men (25.4% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.001), whereas adequate fluid resuscitation was performed more frequently in women than in men (96.8% vs. 95.0%, p = 0.029). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, 1-h bundle therapy was performed less frequently in women than in men [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.559; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.245-1.951; p < 0.001] after adjustment. Among the bundle therapy components, broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered less frequently to women than men (aOR 1.339, 95% CI 1.118-1.605; p = 0.002), whereas adequate fluid resuscitation was performed more frequently for women than for men (aOR 0.629, 95% CI 0.413-0.959; p = 0.031). Invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring was performed less frequently in women than in men. Resuscitation fluid, vasopressor, steroid, central-line insertion, ICU admission, length of stay in the emergency department, mechanical ventilator use, and renal replacement therapy use were comparable for both the sexes. Among patients with sepsis and septic shock, 1-h bundle therapy was performed less frequently in women than in men. Continuous efforts are required to increase adherence to the 1-h bundle therapy and to decrease sex differences in the in-hospital management of patients with sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC10901798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSepsis and septic shock are leading causes of in-hospital mortality. Timely treatment is crucial in improving patient outcome, yet treatment delays remain common. Early prediction of those patients with sepsis who will progress to its most severe form, septic shock, can increase the actionable window for interventions. We aim to extend a time-evolving risk score, previously developed in adult patients, to predict pediatric sepsis patients who are likely to develop septic shock before its onset, and to determine whether or not these risk scores stratify into groups with distinct temporal evolution once this prediction is made.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingAcademic medical center from July 1, 2016, to December 11, 2020.PatientsSix-thousand one-hundred sixty-one patients under 18 admitted to the Johns Hopkins Hospital PICU.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe trained risk models to predict impending transition into septic shock and compute time-evolving risk scores representative of a patient's probability of developing septic shock. We obtain early prediction performance of 0.90 area under the receiver operating curve, 43% overall positive predictive value, patient-specific positive predictive value as high as 62%, and an 8.9-hour median early warning time using Sepsis-3 labels based on age-adjusted Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Using spectral clustering, we stratified pediatric sepsis patients into two clusters differing in septic shock prevalence, mortality, and proportion of patients adequately fluid resuscitated.ConclusionsWe demonstrate the applicability of our methodology for early prediction and stratification for risk of septic shock in pediatric sepsis patients. Through analyses of risk score evolution over time, we corroborate our past finding of an abrupt transition preceding onset of septic shock in children and are able to stratify pediatric sepsis patients using their risk score trajectories into low and high-risk categories.
| S-EPMC8208392 | biostudies-literature