Literature DB >> 27352126

Differences in Impact of Definitional Elements on Mortality Precludes International Comparisons of Sepsis Epidemiology-A Cohort Study Illustrating the Need for Standardized Reporting.

Manu Shankar-Hari1, David A Harrison, Kathryn M Rowan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis generates significant global acute illness burden. The international variations in sepsis epidemiology (illness burden) have implications for region specific health policy. We hypothesised that there have been changes over time in the sepsis definitional elements (infection and organ dysfunction), and these may have impacted on hospital mortality.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: We evaluated a high quality, nationally representative, clinical ICU database including data from 181 adult ICUs in England. PATIENTS: Nine hundred sixty-seven thousand five hundred thirty-two consecutive adult ICU admissions from January 2000 to December 2012.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To address the proposed hypothesis, we evaluated a high quality, nationally representative, clinical, ICU database of 967,532 consecutive admissions to 181 adult ICUs in England, from January 2000 to December 2012, to identify sepsis cases in a robust and reproducible way. Multinomial logistic regression was used to report unadjusted trends in sepsis definitional elements and in mortality risk categories based on organ dysfunction combinations. We generated logistic regression models and assessed statistical interactions with acute hospital mortality as outcome and cohort characteristics, sepsis definitional elements, and mortality risk categories as covariates. Finally, we calculated postestimation statistics to illustrate the magnitude of clinically meaningful improvements in sepsis outcomes over the study period. Over the study period, there were 248,864 sepsis admissions (25.7%). Sepsis mortality varied by infection sources (19.1% for genitourinary to 43.0% for respiratory; p < 0.001), by number of organ dysfunctions (18.5% for 1 to 69.9% for 5; p < 0.001), and organ dysfunction combinations (18.5% for risk category 1 to 58.0% for risk category 4). The rate of improvement in adjusted hospital mortality was significant (odds ratio, 0.939 [0.934-0.945] per year; p < 0.001), but showed different secular trends in improvement between infection sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Within a sepsis cohort, we illustrate case-mix heterogeneity using definitional elements (infection source and organ dysfunction). In the context of improving outcomes, we illustrate differential secular trends in impact of these variables on adjusted mortality and propose this as a valid reason for international variations in sepsis epidemiology. Our article highlights the need to determine standardized reporting elements for optimal comparisons of international sepsis epidemiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27352126     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  28 in total

1.  The new sepsis consensus definitions (Sepsis-3): the good, the not-so-bad, and the actually-quite-pretty.

Authors:  Mervyn Singer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 2.  The intensive care medicine research agenda on septic shock.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Anthony C Gordon; Derek C Angus; Francois Lamontagne; Flavia Machado; James A Russell; Jean-Francois Timsit; John C Marshall; John Myburgh; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Does Sepsis Case Mix Heterogeneity Prevent Outcome Comparisons?

Authors:  Jordan A Kempker; Greg S Martin
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 4.  Immunoglobulins and sepsis.

Authors:  Manu Shankar-Hari; Martin Bruun Madsen; Alexis F Turgeon
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  The Impact of Acute Organ Dysfunction on Long-Term Survival in Sepsis.

Authors:  Alejandro Schuler; David A Wulf; Yun Lu; Theodore J Iwashyna; Gabriel J Escobar; Nigam H Shah; Vincent X Liu
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 6.  Sepsis: frontiers in supportive care, organisation and research.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Andrew Rhodes; Bala Venkatesh; Derek C Angus; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jean-Louis Vincent; John Marshall; Konrad Reinhart; Michael Joannidis; Steven M Opal
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 7.  Current epidemiology of sepsis in mainland China.

Authors:  Xuelian Liao; Bin Du; Meizhu Lu; Minming Wu; Yan Kang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-09

8.  Early PREdiction of sepsis using leukocyte surface biomarkers: the ExPRES-sepsis cohort study.

Authors:  Manu Shankar-Hari; Deepankar Datta; Julie Wilson; Valentina Assi; Jacqueline Stephen; Christopher J Weir; Jillian Rennie; Jean Antonelli; Anthony Bateman; Jennifer M Felton; Noel Warner; Kevin Judge; Jim Keenan; Alice Wang; Tony Burpee; Alun K Brown; Sion M Lewis; Tracey Mare; Alistair I Roy; John Wright; Gillian Hulme; Ian Dimmick; Alasdair Gray; Adriano G Rossi; A John Simpson; Andrew Conway Morris; Timothy S Walsh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Energetic dysfunction in sepsis: a narrative review.

Authors:  Sebastien Preau; Dominique Vodovar; Boris Jung; Steve Lancel; Lara Zafrani; Aurelien Flatres; Mehdi Oualha; Guillaume Voiriot; Youenn Jouan; Jeremie Joffre; Fabrice Uhel; Nicolas De Prost; Stein Silva; Eric Azabou; Peter Radermacher
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 6.925

10.  Adherence to the SEP-1 Sepsis Bundle in Hospital-Onset v. Community-Onset Sepsis: a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jonathan D Baghdadi; Mitchell D Wong; Daniel Z Uslan; Douglas Bell; William E Cunningham; Jack Needleman; Russell Kerbel; Robert Brook
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 6.473

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.