ArticlePDF Available

Assessment of disease-severity scoring systems for patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Due to the increasing burden on hospital systems, most elderly patients with non-surgical sepsis are admitted to general internal medicine departments. Disease-severity scoring systems are used for stratification of patients for utilization management, performance assessment, and clinical research. Some widely used scoring systems for septic patients are inappropriate when rating non-surgical patients in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) environment mainly because their calculations require types of data that are frequently unavailable. This study aimed to assess the fitness of four scoring systems for septic patients hospitalized in general internal medicine departments: modified early warning score (MEWS), simple clinical score (SCS), mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score, and rapid emergency medicine score (REMS). We prospectively collected computerized data of septic patients admitted to general internal medicine departments in our community-based university hospital. We followed 28-day in-hospital mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and 30- and 60-day mortality. Using a logistic regression procedure we calculated the area under ROC curve (AUC) for every scoring system. Between February 1st, 2008 and April 30th, 2009 we gathered data of 1,072 patients meeting sepsis criteria on admission to general internal medicine departments. The 28-day mortality was 19.4%. The AUC for the MEWS was 0.65-0.70, for the SCS 0.76-0.79, for the MEDS 0.73-0.75, and for the REMS, 0.74-0.79. Using Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, a lack of fit was found for the MEDS model. All scoring systems performed better than calculations based on sepsis severity. The SCS and REMS are the most appropriate clinical scores to predict the mortality of patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available

Supplementary resource (1)

... In our population, complications were frequently observed, in more than 50% of patients, similar to that described by Vardi et al. [33]. The risk of complications is 1.5 higher in group B. Global length of stay was similar to other reports [4,37,42]. Treatment was more intensive in group A especially fluid resuscitation and it could be the reason for the higher incidence of heart failure. Acute confusional syndrome was also higher in group A. We think that it could be explained by longer reality deprivation. ...
... Half of them occurred in the first 3 months after discharge, which may suggest that they were related to complications of sepsis and its treatment. Readmission rates and causes within the first 90 days after discharge were similar to dictably in medical patients and similar to published evidence [35][36][37]. ...
... Mortality. In the present study overall 28-day mortality rate in sepsis patients admitted to the IM ward was 32%, similar to that described in studies that also included patients admitted to the ICU [3,4,16,17,36,37]. Focusing on the specific data from general wards, in these studies the percentages stantially higher than mortality rates reported in previously published studies [30,31,55,56], which range between 21.7 and 31%. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Sepsis is the main cause of death in hospitals and the implementation of diagnosis and treatment bundles has shown to improve its evolution. However, there is a lack of evidence about patients attended in conventional units. Methods: A 3-year retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine units with sepsis were included and assigned to two cohorts according to Sepsis Code (SC) activation (group A) or not (B). Baseline and evolution variables were collected. Results: A total of 653 patients were included. In 296 cases SC was activated. Mean age was 81.43 years, median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 2 and 63.25% showed some functional disability. More bundles were completed in group A: blood cultures 95.2% vs 72.5% (p <0.001), extended spectrum antibiotics 59.1% vs 41.4% (p < 0.001), fluid resuscitation 96.62% vs 80.95% (p < 0.001). Infection control at 72 hours was quite higher in group A (81.42% vs 55.18%, odds ratio 3.55 [2.48-5.09]). Antibiotic was optimized more frequently in group A (60.77% vs 47.03%, p 0.008). Mean in-hospital stay was 10.63 days (11.44 vs 8.53 days, p < 0.001). Complications during hospitalization appeared in 51.76% of patients, especially in group B (45.95% vs 56.58%, odds ratio 1.53 [1.12-2.09]). Hospital readmissions were higher in group A (40% vs 24.76%, p < 0.001). 28-day mortality was significantly lower in group A (20.95% vs 42.86%, odds ratio 0.33 [0.23-0.47]). Conclusions: Implementation of SC seems to be effective in improving short-term outcomes in IM patients, although therapy should be tailored in an individual basis.
... Since dispositions from the ER are determined according to the patient's condition and the clinician's judgment, the higher mortality of patients admitted to the ICU is not new. We suppose that disease severity, rather than etiology, would have affected mortality 13,14 . Since this study aimed to clarify and classify the etiologies of ALC in the ER and to evaluate their destinations and the form of discharge, the cause of mortality was beyond its scope. ...
Article
Full-text available
Altered levels of consciousness (ALCs) is a challenging issue; however, data describing its etiology and frequency are lacking. This study aimed to clarify and classify the etiologies of ALCs in the emergency room (ER) and to evaluate their destinations and the form of discharge. This retrospective study included patients with an ALC who visited the ER of a university hospital between January 2018 and December 2020. The cause and classification of the ALCs were carefully determined by a consortium of board-certified faculty members in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and neurology. The reference point for determining the etiology of ALC was discharge from the ER. In total, 2028 patients with ALCs were investigated. More than half (1037, 51.1%) visited the ER between 9:00 and 18:00. The most common etiology was systemic infection (581, 28.6%), followed by metabolic causes (455, 22.4%), and stroke (271, 13.4%). The two leading etiologies were extracranial and had a majority of the cases (1036, 51.5%). The overall mortality rate was 17.2%. This study provides fundamental information on ALC in the ER. Although intracranial etiologies have been foregrounded, this study demonstrated that extracranial etiologies are the main cause of ALC in the ER.
... Among these, one study reported the high predictive power of REMS for in-hospital mortality. 26 In line with our findings, another study reported that REMS had a good prognostic ability (AUC=0.72) to predict mortality in adult ED patients diagnosed with sepsis. 46 In the present systematic review, we selected studies that specifically focused on non-surgical patients. ...
Article
Background: Emergency department (ED) physicians often need to quickly assess patients and determine vital signs to prioritize them by the severity of their condition and make optimal treatment decisions. Effective triage requires optimal scoring systems to accelerate and positively influence the treatment of trauma cases. To this end, a variety of scoring systems have been developed to enable rapid assessment of ED patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy of the rapid emergency medicine score (REMS) system in predicting the mortality rate in non-surgical ED patients. Methods: A systematic search of articles published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted using various scientific databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, IranDOC, Magiran, and Scientific Information Database). Both cross-sectional and cohort studies assessing the REMS system to predict mortality in ED settings were considered. Two reviewers appraised the selected articles independently using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool. The random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. I2 index and Q statistic were used to examine heterogeneity between the articles. Results: The search resulted in 1,310 hits from which, 29 articles were eventually selected. Out of these, for 25 articles, the area under the curve value of REMS ranged from 0.52 to 0.986. The predictive power of REMS for the in-hospital mortality rate was high in 19 articles (67.85%) and low in nine articles (32.15%). Conclusion: The results showed that the REMS system is an effective tool to predict mortality in non-surgical patients presented to the ED. However, further evidence using high-quality design studies is required to substantiate our findings.
... 22 Evidence suggests that the MEWS + SRS sepsis screening tool may result in false-positive screenings. [23][24][25][26][27] Additional research into the specificity of this sepsis screening tool is needed. Ward nursing staff were encouraged to initiate automatic sepsis alerts when MEWS + SRS was ≥ 5; however, this still depended on human factors. ...
Article
Background: Mortality reduction has been a major focus of improvement for health care systems. Although several studies have noted improved sepsis-related mortality with the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, there are no known published early warning sepsis systems using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) EHR system. Methods: The Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MRVAMC), a large academic 1a VHA facility within the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NF/SGVHS), was identified as having opportunities for improvement related to inpatient mortality outcomes. Sepsis was discovered as the primary contributor to inpatient mortality for MRVAMC's acute level of care (LOC). Education along with implementation of an early warning sepsis system (EWSS) was subsequently integrated in the VHA EHR known as the Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture/ Computerized Patient Record System (VistA/CPRS) at NF/SGVHS, which applied a combination of informatics solutions within a Lean Six Sigma quality improvement framework. Results: At MRVAMC, there was an observed decrease in the number of inpatient deaths for the acute LOC from a high of 48 in fiscal year (FY) 2017, quarter 3 to a low of 27 in FY 2019, quarter 4. This resulted in as large of an improvement as a 44% reduction in unadjusted mortality with education and implementation of an EWSS from FYs 2017 to 2019. Additionally, the MRVAMC acute LOC risk-adjusted mortality (standardized mortality ratio) improved from > 1.0 to < 1.0, demonstrating fewer inpatient mortalities than predicted from FYs 2017 to 2019. Conclusions: Education along with the possible implementation of an EWSS within the VHA EHR was associated with improvement in unadjusted and adjusted inpatient mortality at MRVAMC. This may be an effective approach for patients with sepsis.
Article
本邦ではRRS(rapid response system)が多くの施設で導入されつつある。RRSオンラインレジストリ(第1版)は本邦におけるRRSの状況を把握するため2014年に開始,35施設が参加し,6,784症例が蓄積されている。敗血症は,予後を改善するために早期の発見と早期の介入が必要とされている疾患であり,RRSの主な対象疾患の1つである。また,病院の特性によって有害事象が異なるという報告がある。本邦におけるRRS症例で敗血症を対象にした研究は未だに見られない。今回我々は,レジストリのデータから敗血症の状況とRRSチーム体制に対する考察を行った。【対象と結果】5,827症例のうち,535症例(9.1%)が敗血症であった。SEPSIS–2から3への定義変更によって,敗血症の占める割合が8.2%から10.2%へと増加した(p=0.00716)。敗血症症例は,多項目による起動症例が多く,転帰として予定外ICU入室,1か月死亡と関連していた。大学病院では一般病院と比較すると,担癌患者が多く,医療制限は少ない(p<0.0001, p=0.01920)。大学病院は,RRS症例の到着時心停止,予定外ICU入室,1か月死亡と関連していた。【結語】敗血症のRRS起動症例は増加傾向にあり,重症である。施設特性や状況に対応したRRSのチーム体制の構築を考慮する必要がある。 Aims: A rapid response system (RRS) has gradually penetrated Japanese hospitals. In 2011, the RRS online registry began comprehending the situation of RRS in Japan. A total of 35 facilities participated and 6,784 cases were recorded. Sepsis, which requires early detection and treatment, is one of the primary target diseases of an RRS. After analyzing the RRS registry data, we report the current status of sepsis and also discuss the RRS team structure. Methods and Results: Of the 5,884 patients, we identified 535 (9.2%) with sepsis. Regarding the RRS outcome, sepsis cases had a higher proportion of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and higher 1–month mortality, and the change in sepsis definition from SEPSIS–2 to 3 increased the number of sepsis cases. The most common RRS activation criterion was hypotension (44.5%), followed by decreased oxygen saturation (36.9%) and decreased consciousness level (28.5%). Among RRS online registry cases, university hospitals have more physicians in charge, several patients with malignancy, and fewer medical restrictions such as Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR). The university hospital was associated with cardiac arrest on arrival, unscheduled ICU admissions, and 1–month mortality of RRS cases. Conclusions: The number of sepsis cases is increasing. It is important to consider building an RRS team structure that responds to the situation of the reported cases.
Article
Background: Sepsis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early detection of sepsis followed promptly by treatment initiation improves patient outcomes and saves lives. Hospitals are increasingly using computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) systems for the rapid identification of adult patients with sepsis. Objective: This scoping review aims to systematically describe studies reporting on the use and evaluation of CCDS systems for the early detection of adult inpatients with sepsis. Methods: The protocol for this scoping review was previously published. A total of 10 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane database, LILACS [Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature], Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PQDT [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]) were comprehensively searched using terms for sepsis, CCDS, and detection to identify relevant studies. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were performed by 2 independent reviewers using predefined eligibility criteria. Data charting was performed by 1 reviewer with a second reviewer checking a random sample of studies. Any disagreements were discussed with input from a third reviewer. In this review, we present the results for adult inpatients, including studies that do not specify patient age. Results: A search of the electronic databases retrieved 12,139 studies following duplicate removal. We identified 124 studies for inclusion after title, abstract, full-text screening, and hand searching were complete. Nearly all studies (121/124, 97.6%) were published after 2009. Half of the studies were journal articles (65/124, 52.4%), and the remainder were conference abstracts (54/124, 43.5%) and theses (5/124, 4%). Most studies used a single cohort (54/124, 43.5%) or before-after (42/124, 33.9%) approach. Across all 124 included studies, patient outcomes were the most frequently reported outcomes (107/124, 86.3%), followed by sepsis treatment and management (75/124, 60.5%), CCDS usability (14/124, 11.3%), and cost outcomes (9/124, 7.3%). For sepsis identification, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were the most commonly used, alone (50/124, 40.3%), combined with organ dysfunction (28/124, 22.6%), or combined with other criteria (23/124, 18.5%). Over half of the CCDS systems (68/124, 54.8%) were implemented alongside other sepsis-related interventions. Conclusions: The current body of literature investigating the implementation of CCDS systems for the early detection of adult inpatients with sepsis is extremely diverse. There is substantial variability in study design, CCDS criteria and characteristics, and outcomes measured across the identified literature. Future research on CCDS system usability, cost, and impact on sepsis morbidity is needed. International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/24899.
Article
Nurses play a key role as the first line of service for patients with medical conditions and injuries in the emergency department (ED), which includes assessing patients for sepsis. The researchers evaluated tools to examine the performance of the Simple Clinical Score (SCS) and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) to predict sepsis severity and mortality among sepsis patients in the ED. A retrospective survey was performed, selecting participants by using a purposive sampling method, and including the medical records of all patients diagnosed with sepsis admitted to the ED at Singburi Hospital, Thailand. Data were analysed using the ROC curve and the Area Under Curve (AUC) to calculate the accuracy of each patient’s mortality prediction. A total of 225 patients diagnosed with sepsis was identified, with a mortality rate of 59.11% after admission to the medical service and intensive care unit. The AUC analysis showed that the accuracy of the model generated from the REMS (88.6%) was higher than that of the SCS (76.7%). The authors also recommend that key variables identified in this research should be used to develop screening and assessment tools for sepsis in the context of the ED.
Article
Full-text available
Background Medical scoring systems are potentially useful to make optimal use of available resources. A variety of models have been developed for illness measurement and stratification of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs). This study was aimed to compare the predictive performance of the following six scoring systems: Simple Clinical Score (SCS), Worthing physiological Score (WPS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Routine Laboratory Data (RLD) to predict in-hospital mortality. Methods A prospective single-center observational study was conducted from March 2016 to March 2017 in Edalatian ED in Emam Reza Hospital, located in the northeast of Iran. All variables needed to calculate the models were recorded at the time of admission and logistic regression was used to develop the models’ prediction probabilities. The Area Under the Curve for Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC) and Precision-Recall curves (AUC-PR), Brier Score (BS), and calibration plots were used to assess the models’ performance. Internal validation was obtained by 1000 bootstrap samples. Pairwise comparison of AUC-ROC was based on the DeLong test. Results A total of 2205 patients participated in this study with a mean age of 61.8 ± 18.5 years. About 19% of the patients died in the hospital. Approximately 53% of the participants were male. The discrimination ability of SCS, WPS, RAPS, REMS, MEWS, and RLD methods were 0.714, 0.727, 0.661, 0.678, 0.698, and 0.656, respectively. Additionally, the AUC-PR of SCS, WPS, RAPS, REMS, EWS, and RLD were 0.39, 0.42, 0.35, 0.34, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively. Moreover, BS was 0.1459 for SCS, 0.1713 for WPS, 0.0908 for RAPS, 0.1044 for REMS, 0.1158 for MEWS, and 0.073 for RLD. Results of pairwise comparison which was performed for all models revealed that there was no significant difference between the SCS and WPS. The calibration plots demonstrated a relatively good concordance between the actual and predicted probability of non-survival for the SCS and WPS models. Conclusion Both SCS and WPS demonstrated fair discrimination and good calibration, which were superior to the other models. Further recalibration is however still required to improve the predictive performance of all available models and their use in clinical practice is still unwarranted.
Article
Full-text available
Objective To assess predictive performance of universal early warning scores (EWS) in disease subgroups and clinical settings. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane database of systematic reviews from 1997 to 2019. Inclusion criteria Randomised trials and observational studies of internal or external validation of EWS to predict deterioration (mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and cardiac arrest) in disease subgroups or clinical settings. Results We identified 770 studies, of which 103 were included. Study designs and methods were inconsistent, with significant risk of bias (high: n=16 and unclear: n=64 and low risk: n=28). There were only two randomised trials. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in all subgroups and in national early warning score (I ² =72%–99%). Predictive accuracy (mean area under the curve; 95% CI) was highest in medical (0.74; 0.74 to 0.75) and surgical (0.77; 0.75 to 0.80) settings and respiratory diseases (0.77; 0.75 to 0.80). Few studies evaluated EWS in specific diseases, for example, cardiology (n=1) and respiratory (n=7). Mortality and ICU transfer were most frequently studied outcomes, and cardiac arrest was least examined (n=8). Integration with electronic health records was uncommon (n=9). Conclusion Methodology and quality of validation studies of EWS are insufficient to recommend their use in all diseases and all clinical settings despite good performance of EWS in some subgroups. There is urgent need for consistency in methods and study design, following consensus guidelines for predictive risk scores. Further research should consider specific diseases and settings, using electronic health record data, prior to large-scale implementation. PROSPERO registration number PROSPERO CRD42019143141.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Early warning scores (EWS) have been developed as clinical prognostication tools to identify acutely deteriorating patients. In the past few years, there has been a proliferation of studies that describe the development and validation of novel machine learning-based EWS. Systematic reviews of published studies which focus on evaluating performance of both well-established and novel EWS have shown conflicting conclusions. A possible reason is the heterogeneity in validation methods applied. In this review, we aim to examine the methodologies and metrics used in studies which perform EWS validation. Methods: A systematic review of all eligible studies from the MEDLINE database and other sources, was performed. Studies were eligible if they performed validation on at least one EWS and reported associations between EWS scores and inpatient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, or cardiac arrest (CA) of adults. Two reviewers independently did a full-text review and performed data abstraction by using standardized data-worksheet based on the TRIPOD (Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) checklist. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity. Results: The key differences in validation methodologies identified were (1) validation dataset used, (2) outcomes of interest, (3) case definition, time of EWS use and aggregation methods, and (4) handling of missing values. In terms of case definition, among the 48 eligible studies, 34 used the patient episode case definition while 12 used the observation set case definition, and 2 did the validation using both case definitions. Of those that used the patient episode case definition, 18 studies validated the EWS at a single point of time, mostly using the first recorded observation. The review also found more than 10 different performance metrics reported among the studies. Conclusions: Methodologies and performance metrics used in studies performing validation on EWS were heterogeneous hence making it difficult to interpret and compare EWS performance. Standardizing EWS validation methodology and reporting can potentially address this issue.
Article
Full-text available
This report presents final 2006 data on U.S. deaths, death rates, life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, and trends by selected characteristics such as age, sex, Hispanic origin, race, marital status, educational attainment, injury at work, state of residence, and cause of death. It also presents more detailed information than previously presented about the mortality experience of the American Indian or Alaska Native and the Asian or Pacific Islander populations. Information reported on death certificates, which are completed by funeral directors, attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners, is presented in descriptive tabulations. The original records are filed in state registration offices. Statistical information is compiled in a national database through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. Causes of death are processed in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). In 2006, a total of 2,426,264 deaths were reported in the United States. The age-adjusted death rate was 776.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, a decrease of 2.8 percent from the 2005 rate and a record low historical figure. Life expectancy at birth rose 0.3 years, from a revised 2005 value of 77.4 years to a record 77.7 years in 2006. Age-specific death rates increased for those aged 25-34 years but decreased for most other age groups: 5-14 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and 85 years and over. The 15 leading causes of death in 2006 remained the same as in 2005. Heart disease and cancer continued to be the leading and second-leading causes of death, together accounting for almost half of all deaths. The infant mortality rate in 2006 was 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births. Mortality patterns in 2006, such as the decline in the age-adjusted death rate to a record historical low, were generally consistent with long-term trends. Life expectancy increased in 2006 from 2005.
Article
Full-text available
The comparative accuracy and discriminatory power of three validated rules for predicting clinically relevant outcomes other than mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unknown. We prospectively compared the newly developed severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP) score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), and the British Thoracic Society confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate > or = 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg systolic or < 60 mm Hg diastolic, age > or = 65 years (CURB-65) rule in an internal validation cohort of 1,189 consecutive adult inpatients with CAP from one hospital and an external validation cohort of 671 consecutive adult inpatients from three other hospitals. Major adverse outcomes were admission to ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, progression to severe sepsis, or treatment failure. Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was also evaluated. The rules were compared based on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. The rate of all adverse outcomes and hospital LOS increased directly with increasing SCAP, PSI, or CURB-65 scores (p < 0.001) in both cohorts. Patients classified as high risk by the SCAP score showed higher rates of adverse outcomes (ICU admission, 35.8%; mechanical ventilation, 16.4%; severe sepsis, 98.5%; treatment failure, 22.4%) than PSI and CURB-65 high-risk classes. The discriminatory power of SCAP, as measured by AUC, was 0.75 for ICU admission, 0.76 for mechanical ventilation, 0.79 for severe sepsis, and 0.61 for treatment failure in the external validation cohort. AUC differences with PSI or CURB-65 were found. The SCAP score is as accurate or better than other current scoring systems in predicting adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with CAP while helping classify patients into different categories of increasing risk for potentially closer monitoring.
Article
Objective: In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bed-side clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis. Design: The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. Methods: We used a modified Delphi methodology for grading recommendations, built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric, considerations were provided to contrast adult and pediatric management Results: Key recommendations, listed by category and not by hierarchy, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition; appropriate diagnostic studies to ascertain causative organisms before starting antibiotics; early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy; reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate; a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response; source control with attention to the method that balances risks and benefits; equivalence of crystalloid and colloid resuscitation; aggressive fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure; vasopressor preference for norepinephrine and dopamine; cautious use of vasopressin pending further studies; avoiding low-dose dopamine administration for renal protection; consideration of dobutamine inotropic therapy in some clinical situations; avoidance of supranormal oxygen delivery as a goal of therapy; stress-dose steroid therapy for septic shock; use of recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and high risk for death; with resolution of tissue hypoperfusion and in the absence of coronary artery disease or acute hemorrhage, targeting a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL; appropriate use of fresh frozen plasma and platelets; a low tidal volume and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome; application of a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome; a semirecumbent bed position unless contraindicated; protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia, using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions/lightening; avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible; maintenance of blood glucose <150 mg/dL after initial stabilization; equivalence of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration and intermittent hemodialysis; lack of utility of bicarbonate use for pH >7.15; use of deep vein thrombosis/stress ulcer prophylaxis; and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate. Pediatric considerations included a more likely need for intubation due to low functional residual capacity; more difficult intravenous access; fluid resuscitation based on weight with 40-60 mL/kg or higher needed; decreased cardiac output and increased systemic vascular resistance as the most common hemodynamic profile; greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points; unsettled issue of high-dose steroids for therapy of septic shock; and greater risk of hypoglycemia with aggressive glucose control. Conclusion: Evidence-based recommendations can be made regarding many aspects of the acute management of sepsis and septic shock that are hoped to translate into improved outcomes for the critically ill patient. The impact of these guidelines will be formally tested and guidelines updated annually and even more rapidly as some important new knowledge becomes available.
Article
An American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference was held in Northbrook in August 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae. New definitions were offered for some terms, while others were discarded. Broad definitions of sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome were proposed, along with detailed physiologic parameters by which a patient may be categorized. Definitions for severe sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were also offered. The use of severity scoring methods when dealing with septic patients was recommended as an adjunctive tool to assess mortality. Appropriate methods and applications for the use and testing of new therapies were recommended. The use of these terms and techniques should assist clinicians and researchers who deal with sepsis and its sequelae.
Article
There have been over thirty large randomized controlled trials of novel anti-sepsis strategies that have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. While some have argued this is because of a poor understanding of the underlying biology and pathophysiology of sepsis, it is also possible that there are problems with the current design and implementation of sepsis trials. In particular, there are potential problems with sample size, patient selection, and choice of end-points. Although large, most sepsis trials are markedly underpowered in comparison to similar studies in other fields such as cardiology. Given the advances in the care of septic patients, the numerous processes that can influence outcome, and variation in practice style, it is likely that new therapies will have only small, albeit important, clinical effects. To capture such effects, we must consider much larger trials. Patient selection is problematic because sepsis is both a vague term, hampering precise selection criteria, and covers a broad mix of patients, of whom many have a wide range of underlying risk factors, other than sepsis, for adverse outcome. To lessen the problems of imprecise definition and heterogenous patient populations, we must consider either developing more accurate diagnostic criteria or studying more select populations, such as those with specific infections. The current end-point is 28-day mortality. This end-point may be too early, failing to capture the true impact of sepsis on subsequent outcome, and too insensitive, failing to capture important effects on non-mortal outcomes of potential therapies. Alternatives include long-term quality-adjusted survival or the development of proxies for longer-term outcomes. Although organ failure scores may be proxies for long-term outcome, definitive evidence is lacking. In summary, while efforts continue in the pre-clinical arena, optimal investigation of novel anti-sepsis therapies requires reassessment of current trial design, including exploration of more homogeneous patient populations, development of more sensitive or restrictive diagnostic criteria, and consideration of new end-points.
Article
Objective: To determine the incidence, cost, and outcome of severe sepsis in the United States. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: All nonfederal hospitals (n = 847) in seven U.S. states. Patients: All patients (n = 192,980) meeting criteria for severe sepsis based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results : We linked all 1995 state hospital discharge records (n = 6,621,559) from seven large states with population and hospital data from the U.S. Census, the Centers for Disease Control, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the American Hospital Association. We defined severe sepsis as documented infection and acute organ dysfunction using criteria based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. We validated these criteria against prospective clinical and physiologic criteria in a subset of five hospitals. We generated national age- and gender-adjusted estimates of incidence, cost, and outcome. We identified 192,980 cases, yielding national estimates of 751,000 cases (3.0 cases per 1,000 population and 2.26 cases per 100 hospital discharges), of whom 383,000 (51.1%) received intensive care and an additional 130,000 (17.3%) were ventilated in an intermediate care unit or cared for in a coronary care unit. Incidence increased >100-fold with age (0.2/1,000 in children to 26.2/1,000 in those >85 yrs old). Mortality was 28.6%, or 215,000 deaths nationally, and also increased with age, from 10% in children to 38.4% in those >85 yrs old. Women had lower age-specific incidence and mortality, but the difference in mortality was explained by differences in underlying disease and the site of infection. The average costs per case were $22,100, with annual total costs of $16.7 billion nationally. Costs were higher in infants, nonsurvivors, intensive care unit patients, surgical patients, and patients with more organ failure. The incidence was projected to increase by 1.5% per annum. Conclusions: Severe sepsis is a common, expensive, and frequently fatal condition, with as many deaths annually as those from acute myocardial infarction. It is especially common in the elderly and is likely to increase substantially as the U.S. population ages.
Article
This study compares the effectiveness of the Pitt bacteremia score, the Charlson weighted index of comorbidity, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring systems for the prediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis using the retrospective observational method on 134 patients with ICU-acquired sepsis. The statistical analyses show several important findings. First, Pitt bacteremia score is significantly correlated with the APACHE II scoring system (correlation coefficient = 0.738, P < 0.001). Second, the APACHE II scoring system, the Pitt bacteremia score, and the Charlson weighted index of comorbidity are independently correlated with mortality. Third, the Pitt bacteremia score and the APACHE II scores are positively related to mortality in patients with ICU-acquired sepsis. As the result of the analyses, the mortality rate in patients with sepsis in the ICU is better predicted with the Pitt bacteremia score because it provides better estimation of sensitivity and specificity than the APACHE II scoring system and the Charlson weighted index of comorbidity.
Article
An American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference was held in Northbrook in August 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae. New definitions were offered for some terms, while others were discarded. Broad definitions of sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome were proposed, along with detailed physiologic parameters by which a patient may be categorized. Definitions for severe sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were also offered. The use of severity scoring methods when dealing with septic patients was recommended as an adjunctive tool to assess mortality. Appropriate methods and applications for the use and testing of new therapies were recommended. The use of these terms and techniques should assist clinicians and researchers who deal with sepsis and its sequelae.
Article
To compare six disease severity scoring systems as predictors of mortality in septic shock when used in the first 24 hrs of diagnosis. The six scoring systems tested were: Multiorgan Failure; the Acute Organ System Failure; the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II); the Multisystem Organ Failure scoring system; the Mortality Prediction Model; and the grading of sepsis. Retrospective, case series, consecutive sample. Adult ICUs of three teaching hospitals. Seventy-one patients from 12 to 84 yrs, fulfilling specific criteria for the diagnosis of septic shock, who were admitted to the ICU during 15 consecutive months. The Multiorgan Failure scoring system, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), and Acute Organ System Failure scoring system were found, with our modifications, to be statistically significant predictors of mortality. Predictive data for these three scoring systems were as follows: Multiorgan Failure scoring system p = .008, mean number of points of survivors 5.2 +/- 1.5 (SD), mean number of points of nonsurvivors 6.3 +/- 1.5; APACHE II p = .013, mean number of points of survivors 21.1 +/- 5.9, mean number of points of nonsurvivors 24.6 +/- 6.0; and Acute Organ System Failure scoring system p = .011. None of the other three scoring systems showed significant predictive ability: Multisystem Organ Failure scoring system p = .072, Mortality Prediction Model p = 0.091, and the grading of sepsis p = .27. There was a significant (p = .004) difference in the survival rate of the three hospitals. The Multiorgan Failure scoring system, APACHE II, and the Acute Organ System Failure scoring system, with minor modifications, were found to be useful prognostic tools for patients with septic shock and allowed us to compare the performance and treatment programs of different ICUs.