Comparison of the sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 definitions in severely injured trauma patients

This research by Eriksson et al was published online in the Journal of Critical Care during August 2019.
Purpose:  To evaluate the performance of the new SOFA-based sepsis definition in trauma patients.
Materials and methods:  A single-centre, retrospective, observational study. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality including a censoring analysis for early deaths. The primary outcome was evaluated with logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.
Results:  722 severely injured patients were included between 2007 and 2016. 315 patients fulfilled the sepsis-2 criteria and 148 fulfilled the sepsis-3 criteria during the first ten days in the ICU. The odds ratios for 30-day mortality were 0.7 (CI 0.4–1.2) for sepsis-2 and 1.5 (CI 0.8–2.6) for sepsis-3. When censoring patients dying at day 1, sepsis-3 became associated with 30-day mortality whereas sepsis-2 did not. This finding was persistent and enhanced through continuing day-by-day censoring of early deaths. The same pattern was seen for the ROC curves analyses, censoring of early deaths resulted in significant discriminatory properties for sepsis-3 but not for sepsis-2.
Conclusions:  The sepsis-3 definition identifies much fewer patients and is more strongly associated with adverse outcomes than the sepsis-2 definition. The sepsis-3 definition seems to be useful in the post trauma setting.
The full text of this article is available to subscribers via this link to the journal’s homepage.  The full text of articles from issues older than sixty days is available via this link to an archive of issues of Journal of Critical Care.  A Rotherham NHS Athens password is required.  Eligible staff can register for an Athens password via this link.  Please speak to the library staff for more details.

Advertisements

Validation the performance of New York Sepsis Severity Score compared with Sepsis Severity Score in predicting hospital mortality among sepsis patients

This article by Sathaporn and colleagues was first published on line in the Journal of Critical Care in late June 2019.
Purpose:  The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the New York Sepsis Severity Score (NYSSS) with the Sepsis Severity Score (SSS) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation and Simplified Acute Physiology Scores for predicting mortality in sepsis patients.
Method:  A retrospective analysis was conducted in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.
Results:  Overall 1680 sepsis patients were enrolled. The hospital mortality rate was 44.4%. The NYSSS underestimated actual mortality with standard mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.28 (95%CI 1.19–1.38). However, the SSS slightly overestimated the actual mortality with an SMR of 0.94 (0.88–1.01). The NYSSS had moderate discrimination with an AUC of 0.772 (0.750–0.794), in contrast to the SSS which had good discrimination with an AUC of 0.889 (0.873–0.904). The AUC of the SSS was statistically higher than that of the NYSSS. The AUCs of both the NYSSS and SSS were significantly lower than other standard severity scores. The calibrations for all severity scores were poor. The SSS had better overall performance than the NYSSS (Brier score 0.149 and 0.201, respectively).
Conclusion:  The SSS had better discrimination and overall performance than the NYSSS. However, both sepsis severity scores were poorly calibrated.
The full text of this article is available to subscribers via this link to the journal’s homepage.  The full text of articles from issues older than sixty days is available via this link to an archive of issues of Journal of Critical Care.  A Rotherham NHS Athens password is required.  Eligible staff can register for an Athens password via this link.  Please speak to the library staff for more details.

Serum albumin as a risk factor for death in patients with prolonged sepsis: An observational study

This paper by Takegawa and colleagues was published on line in February 2019 in the Journal of Critical Care.
Purpose:  The aim of this study was to evaluate an association between nutritional biomarkers and prognosis in septic patients.
Methods:  We retrospectively searched the association between nutritional biomarkers including serum albumin (Alb), total protein (TP), total cholesterol (T-chol), and cholinesterase (ChE), and prognosis for septic patients treated in the ICU for >7 days. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to resolve the difference of the statistical weight of each day’s data for all 14 consecutive days among individual sepsis patients. The covariates were based on the minimum moving values determined from 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days of serial data. The values of these covariates and ICU survival were considered as outcomes.
Results:  We included 136 septic patients. The decreases in the values of Alb, TP, T-chol, and ChE were significantly associated with the risk of death in the septic patients (p < .05). Especially, the daily changes of Alb were significantly associated with mortality during the ICU stay (p < .05).
Conclusions:  We found that the changes in serial data of the nutritional markers of Alb, TP, T-chol, and ChE reflected the higher risk of death in patients with prolonged sepsis.
The full text of this article is available to subscribers via this link to the journal’s homepageThe full text of articles from issues older than sixty days is available via this link to an archive of issues of Journal of Critical Care.  A Rotherham NHS Athens password is required.  Eligible staff can register for an Athens password via this link Please speak to the library staff for more details.

Acute kidney injury following contrast media administration in the septic patient: A retrospective propensity-matched analysis

This article by Hinson and others was published on line in February 2019 in the Journal of Critical Care.
Purpose:  To determine the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) attributable to intravenous contrast media (CM) administration in septic patients.
Materials and methods:  This was a single-center retrospective propensity matched cohort analysis performed in the emergency department (ED) of an academic medical center. All visits for patients ≥18 years who met sepsis diagnostic criteria and had serum creatinine (SCr) measured both on arrival to the ED and again 48 to 72 h later were included. Of 4171 visits, 1464 patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), 976 underwent unenhanced CT and 1731 underwent no CT at all.
Results:  The primary outcome was incidence of AKI. Logistic regression and between-groups odds ratios with and without propensity-score matching were used to test for an independent association between CM administration and AKI. Incidence of AKI was 7.2%, 9.4% and 9.7% in those who underwent CECT, unenhanced CT and no CT. CM administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI.
Conclusions:  Sepsis is a medical emergency proven to benefit from early diagnosis and rapid initiation of treatment, which is often aided by CECT. Our findings argue against withholding CM for fear of precipitating AKI in potentially septic patients.
The full text of this article is available to subscribers via this link to the journal’s homepage.  The full text of articles from issues older than sixty days is available via this link to an archive of issues of Journal of Critical Care.  A Rotherham NHS Athens password is required.  Eligible staff can register for an Athens password via this link.  Please speak to the library staff for more details.

Characteristics, management, and in-hospital mortality among patients with severe sepsis in intensive care units in Japan: the FORECAST study.

This article by Abe and colleagues appeared in the November 2018 issue of Critical Care.
Background:  Sepsis is a leading cause of death and long-term disability in developed countries. A comprehensive report on the incidence, clinical characteristics, and evolving management of sepsis is important. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, management,and outcomes of patients with severe sepsis in Japan.
Methods:  This is a cohort study of the Focused Outcomes Research in Emergency Care in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome,Sepsis, and Trauma (FORECAST) study, which was a multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted at 59 intensive care units (ICUs) from January 2016 to March 2017. We included adult patients with severe sepsis based on the sepsis-2 criteria.
Results:  In total, 1184 patients (median age 73 years,inter quartile range (IQR) 64-81) with severe sepsis were admitted to the ICU during the study period. The most common comorbidity was diabetes mellitus(23%). Moreover, approximately 63% of patients had septic shock. The median Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 9 (IQR 6-11). The most common site of infection was the lung (31%). Approximately 54% of the participants had positive blood cultures. The compliance rates for the entire 3-h bundle, measurement of central venous pressure, and assessment of central venous oxygen saturation were 64%, 26%, and 7%, respectively. A multi level logistic regression model showed that closed ICUs and non-university hospitals were more compliant with the entire 3-h bundle. The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with severe sepsis was 23% (21-26%). Older age, multiple co-morbidities, suspected site of infection, and increasing SOFA scores correlated with in-hospital mortality, based on the generalized estimating equation model. The length of hospital stay was 24 (12-46) days. Approximately 37% of the patients were discharged home after recovery.
Conclusion:  Our prospective study showed that sepsis management in Japan was characterized by a high compliance rate for the 3-h bundle and low compliance rate for central venous catheter measurements. The in-hospital mortality rate in Japan was comparable to that of other developed countries. Only one third of the patients were discharged home, considering the aging population with multiple co-morbidities in the ICUs in Japan.
The full text of the article is freely available via this link.

TroponinI at admission in the intensive care unit predicts the need of dialysis in septic patients

This article by de Almeida Thiengo and colleagues was published in BMC Nephrology in November 2018.
Background:  In a previous study we showed that troponin I (TnI) > 0.42 ng/mL predicted the need of dialysis in a group of 29 septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to confirm such finding in a larger independent sample.
Methods:  All septic patients admitted to an ICU from March 2016 to February 2017 were included if age between 18 and 90 years, onset of sepsis  0.42 ng/mL. These patients had serum creatinine slightly higher (1.66 ± 0.34 vs. 1.32 ± 0.39 mg/dL; P <  0.0001)than those with lower TnI and similar urine output (1490 ± 682 vs. 1406 ± 631 mL;P = 0.44). At the end of the follow-up period, 70.0% of the patients with lower TnI were alive in comparison with 38.6% of those with higher TnI (p = 0.0014).After 30 days, 69.3 and 2.9% of the patients with lower and higher TnI levels remained free of dialysis, respectively (p  0.42 ng/mL persisted as a strong predictor of dialysis need (hazard ratio 3.48 [95%CI 1.69-7.18]).
Conclusions:  TnI levels at ICU admission are a strong independent predictor of dialysis need in sepsis.
The full text of the article is freely available via this link.

Automated monitoring compared to standard care for the early detection of sepsis in critically ill patients

This Cochrane Systematic Review by Warttig and colleagues was published in June 2018.  The full text of the systematic review is available via this link.
Background:  Sepsis is a life‐threatening condition that is usually diagnosed when a patient has a suspected or documented infection, and meets two or more criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrcochrane-57-1ome (SIRS). The incidence of sepsis is higher among people admitted to critical care settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU) than among people in other settings. If left untreated sepsis can quickly worsen; severe sepsis has a mortality rate of 40% or higher, depending on definition. Recognition of sepsis can be challenging as it usually requires patient data to be combined from multiple unconnected sources, and interpreted correctly, which can be complex and time consuming to do. Electronic systems that are designed to connect information sources together, and automatically collate, analyse, and continuously monitor the information, as well as alerting healthcare staff when pre‐determined diagnostic thresholds are met, may offer benefits by facilitating earlier recognition of sepsis and faster initiation of treatment, such as antimicrobial therapy, fluid resuscitation, inotropes, and vasopressors if appropriate. However, there is the possibility that electronic, automated systems do not offer benefits, or even cause harm. This might happen if the systems are unable to correctly detect sepsis (meaning that treatment is not started when it should be, or it is started when it shouldn’t be), or healthcare staff may not respond to alerts quickly enough, or get ‘alarm fatigue’ especially if the alarms go off frequently or give too many false alarms.

Objectives:  To evaluate whether automated systems for the early detection of sepsis can reduce the time to appropriate treatment (such as initiation of antibiotics, fluids, inotropes, and vasopressors) and improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients in the ICU.

Search methods:  We searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; ISI Web of science; and LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal. We searched all databases from their date of inception to 18 September 2017, with no restriction on country or language of publication.
Selection criteria:  We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared automated sepsis‐monitoring systems to standard care (such as paper‐based systems) in participants of any age admitted to intensive or critical care units for critical illness. We defined an automated system as any process capable of screening patient records or data (one or more systems) automatically at intervals for markers or characteristics that are indicative of sepsis. We defined critical illness as including, but not limited to postsurgery, trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, burns, and hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock. We excluded non‐randomized studies, quasi‐randomized studies, and cross‐over studies . We also excluded studies including people already diagnosed with sepsis.
Data collection and analysis:  We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy; time to initiation of fluid resuscitation; and 30‐day mortality. Secondary outcomes included: length of stay in ICU; failed detection of sepsis; and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

Main results:  We included three RCTs in this review. It was unclear if the RCTs were three separate studies involving 1199 participants in total, or if they were reports from the same study involving fewer participants. We decided to treat the studies separately, as we were unable to make contact with the study authors to clarify.
All three RCTs are of very low study quality because of issues with unclear randomization methods, allocation concealment and uncertainty of effect size. Some of the studies were reported as abstracts only and contained limited data, which prevented meaningful analysis and assessment of potential biases.
The studies included participants who all received automated electronic monitoring during their hospital stay. Participants were randomized to an intervention group (automated alerts sent from the system) or to usual care (no automated alerts sent from the system).
Evidence from all three studies reported ‘Time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy’. We were unable to pool the data, but the largest study involving 680 participants reported median time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy in the intervention group of 5.6 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3 to 19.7) in the intervention group (n = not stated) and 7.8 hours (IQR 2.5 to 33.1) in the control group (n = not stated).
No studies reported ‘Time to initiation of fluid resuscitation’ or the adverse event ‘Mortality at 30 days’. However very low‐quality evidence was available where mortality was reported at other time points. One study involving 77 participants reported 14‐day mortality of 20% in the intervention group and 21% in the control group (numerator and denominator not stated). One study involving 442 participants reported mortality at 28 days, or discharge was 14% in the intervention group and 10% in the control group (numerator and denominator not reported). Sample sizes were not reported adequately for these outcomes and so we could not estimate confidence intervals.

Very low‐quality evidence from one study involving 442 participants reported ‘Length of stay in ICU’. Median length of stay was 3.0 days in the intervention group (IQR = 2.0 to 5.0), and 3.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 4.0 in the control).
Very low‐quality evidence from one study involving at least 442 participants reported the adverse effect ‘Failed detection of sepsis’. Data were only reported for failed detection of sepsis in two participants and it wasn’t clear which group(s) this outcome occurred in.
No studies reported ‘Quality of life’.
Authors’ conclusions:  It is unclear what effect automated systems for monitoring sepsis have on any of the outcomes included in this review. Very low‐quality evidence is only available on automated alerts, which is only one component of automated monitoring systems. It is uncertain whether such systems can replace regular, careful review of the patient’s condition by experienced healthcare staff.