OBJECTIVE: The Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force (Sepsis-3) recently recommended changes to the definitions of sepsis. The impact of these changes remains unclear. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of patients meeting Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria versus patients meeting the "old" (1991) criteria of septic shock only. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of two clinical trials of early septic shock resuscitation. SETTING: Large academic emergency departments in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with suspected infection, more than or equal to two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after fluid resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were further categorized as Sepsis-3 septic shock if they demonstrated hypotension, received vasopressors, and exhibited a lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. We compared in-hospital mortality in patients who met the old definition only with those who met the Sepsis-3 criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four hundred seventy patients were included in the present analysis. Two hundred (42.5%) met Sepsis-3 criteria, whereas 270 (57.4%) met only the old definition. Patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria demonstrated higher severity of illness by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (9 vs 5; p < 0.001) and mortality (29% vs 14%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of 127 patients meeting only the old definition demonstrated significant mortality benefit following implementation of a quantitative resuscitation protocol (35% vs 10%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, 57% of patients meeting old definition for septic shock did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria. Although Sepsis-3 criteria identified a group of patients with increased organ failure and higher mortality, those patients who met the old criteria and not Sepsis-3 criteria still demonstrated significant organ failure and 14% mortality rate.
OBJECTIVE: The Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force (Sepsis-3) recently recommended changes to the definitions of sepsis. The impact of these changes remains unclear. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of patients meeting Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria versus patients meeting the "old" (1991) criteria of septic shock only. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of two clinical trials of early septic shock resuscitation. SETTING: Large academic emergency departments in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with suspected infection, more than or equal to two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after fluid resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were further categorized as Sepsis-3 septic shock if they demonstrated hypotension, received vasopressors, and exhibited a lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. We compared in-hospital mortality in patients who met the old definition only with those who met the Sepsis-3 criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four hundred seventy patients were included in the present analysis. Two hundred (42.5%) met Sepsis-3 criteria, whereas 270 (57.4%) met only the old definition. Patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria demonstrated higher severity of illness by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (9 vs 5; p < 0.001) and mortality (29% vs 14%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of 127 patients meeting only the old definition demonstrated significant mortality benefit following implementation of a quantitative resuscitation protocol (35% vs 10%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, 57% of patients meeting old definition for septic shock did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria. Although Sepsis-3 criteria identified a group of patients with increased organ failure and higher mortality, those patients who met the old criteria and not Sepsis-3 criteria still demonstrated significant organ failure and 14% mortality rate.
Authors: Elizabeth K Stevenson; Amanda R Rubenstein; Gregory T Radin; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Allan J Walkey Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 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: Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen; Michael Bailey; David Pilcher; D Jamie Cooper; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ryan C Arnold; Robert Sherwin; Nathan I Shapiro; Jennifer L O'Connor; Lindsey Glaspey; Sam Singh; Patrick Medado; Stephen Trzeciak; Alan E Jones Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Sarah A Sterling; Michael A Puskarich; Nathan I Shapiro; Stephen Trzeciak; Jeffrey A Kline; Richard L Summers; Alan E Jones Journal: Shock Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: C J Reuß; M Bernhard; C Beynon; A Hecker; C Jungk; C Nusshag; M A Weigand; D Michalski; T Brenner Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Jean-François Timsit; Matteo Bassetti; Olaf Cremer; George Daikos; Jan de Waele; Andre Kallil; Eric Kipnis; Marin Kollef; Kevin Laupland; Jose-Artur Paiva; Jesús Rodríguez-Baño; Étienne Ruppé; Jorge Salluh; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Emmanuel Weiss; François Barbier Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440