Alistair E W Johnson1,2, Jerome Aboab1,3,4, Jesse D Raffa1, Tom J Pollard1,2, Rodrigo O Deliberato1,5, Leo A Celi1,2, David J Stone1,6. 1. MIT Critical Data, Cambridge, MA. 2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Réanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, AP-HP, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), Garches, France. 4. Laboratoire d'étude de la réponse neuroendocrine au sepsis, EA4342, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Garches, France. 5. Critical Care Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurosurgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative validity of criteria for the identification of sepsis in an ICU database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adult ICU admissions from 2008 to 2012. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital in Boston, MA. PATIENTS: Initial admission of all adult patients to noncardiac surgical ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of five different algorithms for retrospectively identifying sepsis, including the Sepsis-3 criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 11,791 of 23,620 ICU admissions (49.9%) met criteria for the study. Within this subgroup, 59.9% were suspected of infection on ICU admission, 75.2% of admissions had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and 49.1% had both suspicion of infection and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2 thereby meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria. The area under the receiver operator characteristic of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.74) for hospital mortality was consistent with previous studies of the Sepsis-3 criteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Angus, Martin, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and explicit coding methods for identifying sepsis revealed respective sepsis incidences of 31.9%, 28.6%, 14.7%, 11.0%, and 9.0%. In-hospital mortality increased with decreasing cohort size, ranging from 30.1% (explicit codes) to 14.5% (Sepsis-3 criteria). Agreement among the criteria was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.40-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: The new organ dysfunction-based Sepsis-3 criteria have been proposed as a clinical method for identifying sepsis. These criteria identified a larger, less severely ill cohort than that identified by previously used administrative definitions. The Sepsis-3 criteria have several advantages over prior methods, including less susceptibility to coding practices changes, provision of temporal context, and possession of high construct validity. However, the Sepsis-3 criteria also present new challenges, especially when calculated retrospectively. Future studies on sepsis should recognize the differences in outcome incidence among identification methods and contextualize their findings according to the different cohorts identified.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative validity of criteria for the identification of sepsis in an ICU database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adult ICU admissions from 2008 to 2012. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital in Boston, MA. PATIENTS: Initial admission of all adult patients to noncardiac surgical ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of five different algorithms for retrospectively identifying sepsis, including the Sepsis-3 criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 11,791 of 23,620 ICU admissions (49.9%) met criteria for the study. Within this subgroup, 59.9% were suspected of infection on ICU admission, 75.2% of admissions had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and 49.1% had both suspicion of infection and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2 thereby meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria. The area under the receiver operator characteristic of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.74) for hospital mortality was consistent with previous studies of the Sepsis-3 criteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Angus, Martin, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and explicit coding methods for identifying sepsis revealed respective sepsis incidences of 31.9%, 28.6%, 14.7%, 11.0%, and 9.0%. In-hospital mortality increased with decreasing cohort size, ranging from 30.1% (explicit codes) to 14.5% (Sepsis-3 criteria). Agreement among the criteria was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.40-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: The new organ dysfunction-based Sepsis-3 criteria have been proposed as a clinical method for identifying sepsis. These criteria identified a larger, less severely ill cohort than that identified by previously used administrative definitions. The Sepsis-3 criteria have several advantages over prior methods, including less susceptibility to coding practices changes, provision of temporal context, and possession of high construct validity. However, the Sepsis-3 criteria also present new challenges, especially when calculated retrospectively. Future studies on sepsis should recognize the differences in outcome incidence among identification methods and contextualize their findings according to the different cohorts identified.
Authors: Derek C Angus; Christopher W Seymour; Craig M Coopersmith; Clifford S Deutschman; Michael Klompas; Mitchell M Levy; Gregory S Martin; Tiffany M Osborn; Chanu Rhee; R Scott Watson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Vincent X Liu; Theodore J Iwashyna; Frank M Brunkhorst; Thomas D Rea; André Scherag; Gordon Rubenfeld; Jeremy M Kahn; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Gabriel J Escobar; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Eamon P Raith; Andrew A Udy; Michael Bailey; Steven McGloughlin; Christopher MacIsaac; Rinaldo Bellomo; David V Pilcher Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alistair E W Johnson; Tom J Pollard; Lu Shen; Li-Wei H Lehman; Mengling Feng; Mohammad Ghassemi; Benjamin Moody; Peter Szolovits; Leo Anthony Celi; Roger G Mark Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Robert B Lindell; Akira Nishisaki; Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Danielle M Traynor; Marianne R Chilutti; Robert W Grundmeier; Julie C Fitzgerald Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-02 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: Priya A Prasad; Margaret C Fang; Yumiko Abe-Jones; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Kirsten N Kangelaris Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christopher Nielson; Martin G Seneviratne; Joseph R Ledsam; Shakir Mohamed; Nenad Tomašev; Natalie Harris; Sebastien Baur; Anne Mottram; Xavier Glorot; Jack W Rae; Michal Zielinski; Harry Askham; Andre Saraiva; Valerio Magliulo; Clemens Meyer; Suman Ravuri; Ivan Protsyuk; Alistair Connell; Cían O Hughes; Alan Karthikesalingam; Julien Cornebise; Hugh Montgomery; Geraint Rees; Chris Laing; Clifton R Baker; Thomas F Osborne; Ruth Reeves; Demis Hassabis; Dominic King; Mustafa Suleyman; Trevor Back Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Max T Wayne; Daniel Molling; Xiao Qing Wang; Cainnear K Hogan; Sarah Seelye; Vincent X Liu; Hallie C Prescott Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-04