OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of an initial serum lactate measurement for identifying high risk of death in patients with infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Post-hoc analysis of a prospectively compiled registry in an urban academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with (a) a primary or secondary diagnosis of infection and (b) lactate measurement who were admitted over the 18 months following hospital-wide implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline for lactate measurement in patients with infection and possible severe sepsis. There were 1,177 unique patients, with an in-hospital mortality of 19%. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcome measures included acute-phase (<or=3 days) death and in-hospital death. We defined lactate ranges a priori (low, 0.0-2.0; intermediate, 2.1-3.9; high, 4.0 mmol/l or above)--and tested for linear associations with mortality by one-way analysis of variance. We determined sensitivity/specificity, odds ratios, and likelihood ratios for a lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l and performed a Bayesian analysis to determine its impact on a full range (0.01-0.99) of hypothetical pretest probability estimates for death. In-hospital mortality was 15%, 25%, and 38% in low, intermediate, and high lactate groups, respectively. Acute-phase deaths and in-hospital deaths increased linearly with lactate. An initial lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l was associated with sixfold higher odds of acute-phase death; however, a lactate level less than 4 mmol/l had little impact on probability of death. CONCLUSIONS: When broadly implemented in routine practice, measurement of lactate in patients with infection and possible sepsis can affect assessment of mortality risk. Specifically, an initial lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l substantially increases the probability of acute-phase death.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of an initial serum lactate measurement for identifying high risk of death in patients with infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Post-hoc analysis of a prospectively compiled registry in an urban academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with (a) a primary or secondary diagnosis of infection and (b) lactate measurement who were admitted over the 18 months following hospital-wide implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline for lactate measurement in patients with infection and possible severe sepsis. There were 1,177 unique patients, with an in-hospital mortality of 19%. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcome measures included acute-phase (<or=3 days) death and in-hospital death. We defined lactate ranges a priori (low, 0.0-2.0; intermediate, 2.1-3.9; high, 4.0 mmol/l or above)--and tested for linear associations with mortality by one-way analysis of variance. We determined sensitivity/specificity, odds ratios, and likelihood ratios for a lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l and performed a Bayesian analysis to determine its impact on a full range (0.01-0.99) of hypothetical pretest probability estimates for death. In-hospital mortality was 15%, 25%, and 38% in low, intermediate, and high lactate groups, respectively. Acute-phase deaths and in-hospital deaths increased linearly with lactate. An initial lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l was associated with sixfold higher odds of acute-phase death; however, a lactate level less than 4 mmol/l had little impact on probability of death. CONCLUSIONS: When broadly implemented in routine practice, measurement of lactate in patients with infection and possible sepsis can affect assessment of mortality risk. Specifically, an initial lactate >or=4.0 mmol/l substantially increases the probability of acute-phase death.
Authors: J Aduen; W K Bernstein; T Khastgir; J Miller; R Kerzner; A Bhatiani; J Lustgarten; A S Bassin; L Davison; B Chernow Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-12-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Jean M Carlet; Henry Masur; Herwig Gerlach; Thierry Calandra; Jonathan Cohen; Juan Gea-Banacloche; Didier Keh; John C Marshall; Margaret M Parker; Graham Ramsay; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent; M M Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Rémi Coudroy; Angéline Jamet; Jean-Pierre Frat; Anne Veinstein; Delphine Chatellier; Véronique Goudet; Severin Cabasson; Arnaud W Thille; René Robert Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jeffrey P Green; Tony Berger; Nidhi Garg; Alison Suarez; Yolanda Hagar; Michael S Radeos; Edward A Panacek Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Katy M Hanzelka; Sai-Ching J Yeung; Gary Chisholm; Kelly Willis Merriman; Susan Gaeta; Imrana Malik; Terry W Rice Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fernando Luiz Zanoni; Simon Benabou; Karin Vicente Greco; Ana Carolina Ramos Moreno; José Walber Miranda Costa Cruz; Fernando Paranaiba Filgueira; Marina Baquerizo Martinez; Luiz Francisco Poli de Figueiredo; Maurício Rocha e Silva; Paulina Sannomiya Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Nathan I Shapiro; Christopher Fisher; Michael Donnino; Lauren Cataldo; Aimee Tang; Stephen Trzeciak; Gary Horowitz; Richard E Wolfe Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 1.484