Sameer S Kadri1, Chanu Rhee2, Jeffrey R Strich3, Megan K Morales4, Samuel Hohmann5, Jonathan Menchaca6, Anthony F Suffredini7, Robert L Danner7, Michael Klompas8. 1. Critical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA; Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: crhee1@partners.org. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC; Division of Clinical Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. 5. University HealthSystem Consortium, Chicago, IL; Department of Health Systems Management, Rush University, Chicago, IL. 6. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA. 7. Critical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 8. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA; Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data. METHODS: We identified all patients with concurrent blood cultures, antibiotics, and vasopressors for ≥ two consecutive days, and all patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes for septic shock, at 27 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2014. We compared annual incidence and mortality trends. We reviewed 967 records from three hospitals to estimate the accuracy of each method. RESULTS: Of 6.5 million adult hospitalizations, 99,312 (1.5%) were flagged by clinical criteria, 82,350 (1.3%) by ICD-9 codes, and 44,651 (0.7%) by both. Sensitivity for clinical criteria was higher than claims (74.8% vs 48.3%; P < .01), whereas positive predictive value was comparable (83% vs 89%; P = .23). Septic shock incidence, based on clinical criteria, rose from 12.8 to 18.6 cases per 1,000 hospitalizations (average, 4.9% increase/y; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.9%), while mortality declined from 54.9% to 50.7% (average, 0.6% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%). In contrast, septic shock incidence, based on ICD-9 codes, increased from 6.7 to 19.3 per 1,000 hospitalizations (19.8% increase/y; 95% CI, 16.6%-20.9%), while mortality decreased from 48.3% to 39.3% (1.2% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical surveillance definition based on concurrent vasopressors, blood cultures, and antibiotics accurately identifies septic shock hospitalizations and suggests that the incidence of patients receiving treatment for septic shock has risen and mortality rates have fallen, but less dramatically than estimated on the basis of ICD-9 codes.
BACKGROUND: Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data. METHODS: We identified all patients with concurrent blood cultures, antibiotics, and vasopressors for ≥ two consecutive days, and all patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes for septic shock, at 27 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2014. We compared annual incidence and mortality trends. We reviewed 967 records from three hospitals to estimate the accuracy of each method. RESULTS: Of 6.5 million adult hospitalizations, 99,312 (1.5%) were flagged by clinical criteria, 82,350 (1.3%) by ICD-9 codes, and 44,651 (0.7%) by both. Sensitivity for clinical criteria was higher than claims (74.8% vs 48.3%; P < .01), whereas positive predictive value was comparable (83% vs 89%; P = .23). Septic shock incidence, based on clinical criteria, rose from 12.8 to 18.6 cases per 1,000 hospitalizations (average, 4.9% increase/y; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.9%), while mortality declined from 54.9% to 50.7% (average, 0.6% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%). In contrast, septic shock incidence, based on ICD-9 codes, increased from 6.7 to 19.3 per 1,000 hospitalizations (19.8% increase/y; 95% CI, 16.6%-20.9%), while mortality decreased from 48.3% to 39.3% (1.2% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical surveillance definition based on concurrent vasopressors, blood cultures, and antibiotics accurately identifies septic shock hospitalizations and suggests that the incidence of patients receiving treatment for septic shock has risen and mortality rates have fallen, but less dramatically than estimated on the basis of ICD-9 codes.
Authors: Tara Lagu; Peter K Lindenauer; Michael B Rothberg; Brian H Nathanson; Penelope S Pekow; Jay S Steingrub; Thomas L Higgins Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Sameer Kadri; Susan S Huang; Michael V Murphy; Lingling Li; Richard Platt; Michael Klompas Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Vance Beck; Dan Chateau; Gregory L Bryson; Amarnath Pisipati; Sergio Zanotti; Joseph E Parrillo; Anand Kumar Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: James Trauer; Stephen Muhi; Emma S McBryde; Shmeylan A Al Harbi; Yaseen M Arabi; Andrew J Boyle; Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba; Wei Chen; Yung-Tai Chen; Marco Falcone; Ognjen Gajic; Jack Godsell; Michelle Ng Gong; Daryl Kor; Wolfgang Lösche; Daniel F McAuley; Hollis R O'Neal; Michael Osthoff; Gordon P Otto; Maik Sossdorf; Min-Juei Tsai; Juan C Valerio-Rojas; Tom van der Poll; Francesco Violi; Lorraine Ware; Andreas F Widmer; Maryse A Wiewel; Johannes Winning; Damon P Eisen Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Maximilian S Jentzsch; Sameer S Kadri; Christopher W Seymour; Derek C Angus; David J Murphy; Greg S Martin; Raymund B Dantes; Lauren Epstein; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Robert L Danner; David K Warren; Edward J Septimus; Jason Hickok; Russell E Poland; Robert Jin; David Fram; Richard Schaaf; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Zilu Zhang; Sameer S Kadri; David J Murphy; Greg S Martin; Elizabeth Overton; Christopher W Seymour; Derek C Angus; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David Fram; Richard Schaaf; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David J Murphy; Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sameer S Kadri; Derek C Angus; Robert L Danner; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Greg S Martin; Edward Septimus; David K Warren; Anita Karcz; Christina Chan; John T Menchaca; Rui Wang; Susan Gruber; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272