Jenny Rosendahl1, Hristina Kisyova2, Romina Gawlytta3, André Scherag4. 1. Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena, Germany; Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Center for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena, Germany. Electronic address: jenny.rosendahl@med.uni-jena.de. 2. Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena, Germany. 3. Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena, Germany; Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Center for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena, Germany. 4. Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Center for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena, Germany; Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller-University Jena, Institute of Medical Statistics, Computer and Data Sciences, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aim of the present study was to compare the validity of three screening instruments to assess symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after intensive care of sepsis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants were recruited within a large multicenter patient cohort study on long-term sequelae of sepsis. Adult patients (n = 83) on average four months after intensive care of (severe) sepsis or septic shock were included (median age 64 years, 60% male). PTSD symptom severity was assessed by three different self-report measures: two versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Scale (PTSS-10; PTSS-14), and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). A clinical PTSD diagnosis was derived by using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). RESULTS: Ten patients (12%) were diagnosed with PTSD. PTSS-10, PTSS-14, and PCL-5 revealed good reliability and concurrent validity. PTSS-14 showed the best accuracy in screening patients at risk for PTSD after intensive care with 80% sensitivity and 92% specificity at the recommended cutoff of 40. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PTSS-10 and PCL-5, PTSS-14 appeared more appropriate for post-ICU PTSD screening when validated against a DSM-5 diagnostic interview.
PURPOSE: Aim of the present study was to compare the validity of three screening instruments to assess symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after intensive care of sepsis. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Participants were recruited within a large multicenter patient cohort study on long-term sequelae of sepsis. Adult patients (n = 83) on average four months after intensive care of (severe) sepsis or septic shock were included (median age 64 years, 60% male). PTSD symptom severity was assessed by three different self-report measures: two versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Scale (PTSS-10; PTSS-14), and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). A clinical PTSD diagnosis was derived by using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). RESULTS: Ten patients (12%) were diagnosed with PTSD. PTSS-10, PTSS-14, and PCL-5 revealed good reliability and concurrent validity. PTSS-14 showed the best accuracy in screening patients at risk for PTSD after intensive care with 80% sensitivity and 92% specificity at the recommended cutoff of 40. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PTSS-10 and PCL-5, PTSS-14 appeared more appropriate for post-ICU PTSD screening when validated against a DSM-5 diagnostic interview.
Authors: Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek; Miriam Kesselmeier; Dominique Ouart; Christiane S Hartog; Michael Bauer; Sven Bercker; Michael Bucher; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Sirak Petros; Torsten Schreiber; Philipp Simon; Lorenz Weidhase; Sebastian Born; Anke Braune; Hicham Chkirni; Cornelia Eichhorn; Sandra Fiedler; Christin Gampe; Christian König; Stephanie Platzer; Heike Romeike; Kristin Töpfer; Konrad Reinhart; André Scherag Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Giacomo Monti; Carlo Leggieri; Evgeny Fominskiy; Anna Mara Scandroglio; Sergio Colombo; Margherita Tozzi; Elena Moizo; Milena Mucci; Martina Crivellari; Marina Pieri; Francesca Guzzo; Simona Piemontese; Rebecca De Lorenzo; Valentina Da Prat; Monica Fedrizzi; Carolina Faustini; Martina Di Piazza; Francesca Conte; Rosalba Lembo; Antonio Esposito; Lorenzo Dagna; Giovanni Landoni; Alberto Zangrillo Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.274
Authors: Venkatakrishna Rajajee; Christopher Mon-Chee Fung; Katharine Surella Seagly; Pauline Kyonsook Park; Krishnan Raghavendran; David Antonio Machado-Aranda; Jonathan William Scott; Matthew Joseph Delano; Ashraf Shaaban Abdel Aziz Abou El Ela; Jonathan William Haft; Craig Andrew Williamson; Jakob Israel McSparron; Ross Blank; Lena Marie Napolitano Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: Alberto Zangrillo; Alessandro Belletti; Diego Palumbo; Maria Rosa Calvi; Francesca Guzzo; Evgeny V Fominskiy; Alessandro Ortalda; Pasquale Nardelli; Marco Ripa; Martina Baiardo Redaelli; Giovanni Borghi; Giovanni Landoni; Filippo D'Amico; Marilena Marmiere; Beatrice Righetti; Margherita Rocchi; Marco Saracino; Moreno Tresoldi; Lorenzo Dagna; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Frank Muscara; Maria C McCarthy; Meredith Rayner; Jan M Nicholson; Anica Dimovski; Laura McMillan; Stephen J C Hearps; Jackie Yamada; Kylie Burke; Robyn Walser; Vicki A Anderson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01