-
The New England Journal of Medicine Aug 2013
Review
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Resuscitation; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 23984731
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1208623 -
Critical Care Medicine Feb 2013To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.
DESIGN
A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
METHODS
The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.
RESULTS
Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).
CONCLUSIONS
Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Topics: Critical Care; Early Diagnosis; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 23353941
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af -
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory... 2013Sepsis is an unusual systemic reaction to what is sometimes an otherwise ordinary infection, and it probably represents a pattern of response by the immune system to... (Review)
Review
Sepsis is an unusual systemic reaction to what is sometimes an otherwise ordinary infection, and it probably represents a pattern of response by the immune system to injury. A hyper-inflammatory response is followed by an immunosuppressive phase during which multiple organ dysfunction is present and the patient is susceptible to nosocomial infection. Biomarkers to diagnose sepsis may allow early intervention which, although primarily supportive, can reduce the risk of death. Although lactate is currently the most commonly used biomarker to identify sepsis, other biomarkers may help to enhance lactate's effectiveness; these include markers of the hyper-inflammatory phase of sepsis, such as pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines; proteins such as C-reactive protein and procalcitonin which are synthesized in response to infection and inflammation; and markers of neutrophil and monocyte activation. Recently, markers of the immunosuppressive phase of sepsis, such as anti-inflammatory cytokines, and alterations of the cell surface markers of monocytes and lymphocytes have been examined. Combinations of pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers in a multi-marker panel may help identify patients who are developing severe sepsis before organ dysfunction has advanced too far. Combined with innovative approaches to treatment that target the immunosuppressive phase, these biomarkers may help to reduce the mortality rate associated with severe sepsis which, despite advances in supportive measures, remains high.
Topics: Biomarkers; Cytokines; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Inflammation; Neutrophil Activation; Sepsis
PubMed: 23480440
DOI: 10.3109/10408363.2013.764490 -
Critical Care Medicine Jan 2022To determine the associations of demographic, clinical, laboratory, organ dysfunction, and illness severity variable values with: 1) sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the associations of demographic, clinical, laboratory, organ dysfunction, and illness severity variable values with: 1) sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock in children with infection and 2) multiple organ dysfunction or death in children with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2004, and November 16, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials in children greater than or equal to 37-week-old postconception to 18 years with suspected or confirmed infection, which included the terms "sepsis," "septicemia," or "septic shock" in the title or abstract.
DATA EXTRACTION
Study characteristics, patient demographics, clinical signs or interventions, laboratory values, organ dysfunction measures, and illness severity scores were extracted from eligible articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
DATA SYNTHESIS
One hundred and six studies met eligibility criteria of which 81 were included in the meta-analysis. Sixteen studies (9,629 patients) provided data for the sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock outcome and 71 studies (154,674 patients) for the mortality outcome. In children with infection, decreased level of consciousness and higher Pediatric Risk of Mortality scores were associated with sepsis/severe sepsis. In children with sepsis/severe sepsis/septic shock, chronic conditions, oncologic diagnosis, use of vasoactive/inotropic agents, mechanical ventilation, serum lactate, platelet count, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, multi-organ dysfunction syndrome, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, Pediatric Index of Mortality-3, and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score each demonstrated significant and consistent associations with mortality. Pooled mortality rates varied among high-, upper middle-, and lower middle-income countries for patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Strong associations of several markers of organ dysfunction with the outcomes of interest among infected and septic children support their inclusion in the data validation phase of the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Consciousness; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Organ Dysfunction Scores; Patient Acuity; Respiration, Artificial; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Sociodemographic Factors
PubMed: 34612847
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005294 -
Virulence Jan 2014Severe sepsis is a leading cause of death in the United States and the most common cause of death among critically ill patients in non-coronary intensive care units... (Review)
Review
Severe sepsis is a leading cause of death in the United States and the most common cause of death among critically ill patients in non-coronary intensive care units (ICU). Respiratory tract infections, particularly pneumonia, are the most common site of infection, and associated with the highest mortality. The type of organism causing severe sepsis is an important determinant of outcome, and gram-positive organisms as a cause of sepsis have increased in frequency over time and are now more common than gram-negative infections. Recent studies suggest that acute infections worsen pre-existing chronic diseases or result in new chronic diseases, leading to poor long-term outcomes in acute illness survivors. People of older age, male gender, black race, and preexisting chronic health conditions are particularly prone to develop severe sepsis; hence prevention strategies should be targeted at these vulnerable populations in future studies.
Topics: Acute Disease; Critical Illness; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Obesity; Respiratory Tract Infections; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 24335434
DOI: 10.4161/viru.27372 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2022Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China.
METHODS
We Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%-32.8%, I = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%-46.0%, I = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P).
Topics: Humans; China; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729526
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07543-8 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... May 2015Limited data exist about the international burden of severe sepsis in critically ill children.
RATIONALE
Limited data exist about the international burden of severe sepsis in critically ill children.
OBJECTIVES
To characterize the global prevalence, therapies, and outcomes of severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units to better inform interventional trials.
METHODS
A point prevalence study was conducted on 5 days throughout 2013-2014 at 128 sites in 26 countries. Patients younger than 18 years of age with severe sepsis as defined by consensus criteria were included. Outcomes were severe sepsis point prevalence, therapies used, new or progressive multiorgan dysfunction, ventilator- and vasoactive-free days at Day 28, functional status, and mortality.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Of 6,925 patients screened, 569 had severe sepsis (prevalence, 8.2%; 95% confidence interval, 7.6-8.9%). The patients' median age was 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.7-11.0) years. The most frequent sites of infection were respiratory (40%) and bloodstream (19%). Common therapies included mechanical ventilation (74% of patients), vasoactive infusions (55%), and corticosteroids (45%). Hospital mortality was 25% and did not differ by age or between developed and resource-limited countries. Median ventilator-free days were 16 (IQR, 0-25), and vasoactive-free days were 23 (IQR, 12-28). Sixty-seven percent of patients had multiorgan dysfunction at sepsis recognition, with 30% subsequently developing new or progressive multiorgan dysfunction. Among survivors, 17% developed at least moderate disability. Sample sizes needed to detect a 5-10% absolute risk reduction in outcomes within interventional trials are estimated between 165 and 1,471 [corrected] patients per group.
CONCLUSIONS
Pediatric severe sepsis remains a burdensome public health problem, with prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates similar to those reported in critically ill adult populations. International clinical trials targeting children with severe sepsis are warranted.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Cross-Sectional Studies; Databases, Factual; Global Health; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Multiple Organ Failure; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Respiration, Artificial; Sepsis
PubMed: 25734408
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201412-2323OC -
Critical Care Medicine Sep 2015We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
We sought to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on the association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search criteria was performed using a predefined protocol.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, reported time to antibiotic administration in relation to emergency department triage and/or shock recognition, and mortality.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
immunosuppressed populations, review article, editorial, or nonhuman studies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers screened abstracts with a third reviewer arbitrating. The effect of time to antibiotic administration on mortality was based on current guideline recommendations: 1) administration within 3 hours of emergency department triage and 2) administration within 1 hour of severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Odds ratios were calculated using a random effect model. The primary outcome was mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 1,123 publications were identified and 11 were included in the analysis. Among the 11 included studies, 16,178 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from emergency department triage. Patients who received antibiotics more than 3 hours after emergency department triage (< 3 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.16 (0.92-1.46; p = 0.21). A total of 11,017 patients were evaluable for antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/septic shock recognition. Patients who received antibiotics more than 1 hour after severe sepsis/shock recognition (< 1 hr reference) had a pooled odds ratio for mortality of 1.46 (0.89-2.40; p = 0.13). There was no increased mortality in the pooled odds ratios for each hourly delay from less than 1 to more than 5 hours in antibiotic administration from severe sepsis/shock recognition.
CONCLUSION
Using the available pooled data, we found no significant mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within 3 hours of emergency department triage or within 1 hour of shock recognition in severe sepsis and septic shock. These results suggest that currently recommended timing metrics as measures of quality of care are not supported by the available evidence.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Length of Stay; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Triage
PubMed: 26121073
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001142 -
Intensive Care Medicine Feb 2013To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.
DESIGN
A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
METHODS
The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.
RESULTS
Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).
CONCLUSIONS
Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Topics: Humans; Sepsis; Severity of Illness Index; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 23361625
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8 -
JAMA Oct 2010Cognitive impairment and functional disability are major determinants of caregiving needs and societal health care costs. Although the incidence of severe sepsis is high...
CONTEXT
Cognitive impairment and functional disability are major determinants of caregiving needs and societal health care costs. Although the incidence of severe sepsis is high and increasing, the magnitude of patients' long-term cognitive and functional limitations after sepsis is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the change in cognitive impairment and physical functioning among patients who survive severe sepsis, controlling for their presepsis functioning.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS
A prospective cohort involving 1194 patients with 1520 hospitalizations for severe sepsis drawn from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of US residents (1998-2006). A total of 9223 respondents had a baseline cognitive and functional assessment and had linked Medicare claims; 516 survived severe sepsis and 4517 survived a nonsepsis hospitalization to at least 1 follow-up survey and are included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Personal interviews were conducted with respondents or proxies using validated surveys to assess the presence of cognitive impairment and to determine the number of activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs) for which patients needed assistance.
RESULTS
Survivors' mean age at hospitalization was 76.9 years. The prevalence of moderate to severe cognitive impairment increased 10.6 percentage points among patients who survived severe sepsis, an odds ratio (OR) of 3.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-7.25) in multivariable regression. Likewise, a high rate of new functional limitations was seen following sepsis: in those with no limits before sepsis, a mean 1.57 new limitations (95% CI, 0.99-2.15); and for those with mild to moderate limitations before sepsis, a mean of 1.50 new limitations (95% CI, 0.87-2.12). In contrast, nonsepsis general hospitalizations were associated with no change in moderate to severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.67; P for difference vs sepsis = .01) and with the development of fewer new limitations (mean among those with no limits before hospitalization, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57; P for difference vs sepsis <.001 and mean among those with mild to moderate limits, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P for difference = .001). The declines in cognitive and physical function persisted for at least 8 years.
CONCLUSIONS
Severe sepsis in this older population was independently associated with substantial and persistent new cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors. The magnitude of these new deficits was large, likely resulting in a pivotal downturn in patients' ability to live independently.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Cognition Disorders; Disabled Persons; Female; Health Status; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Sepsis; Severity of Illness Index; Survivors; United States
PubMed: 20978258
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1553