Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research - 23/09/17
, Anthony Delaney, PhD, FACEM b, c, Michael Bailey, MSc, PhD b, Rinaldo Bellomo, MD, FCICM b, dfor the
ARISE Investigators†
Abstract |
Study objective |
The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial.
Methods |
This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined.
Results |
There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 69.4% to 73.8%]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7% [95% CI 82.9% to 86.4%]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5% [95% CI 61.1% to 65.8%]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8% [95% CI 11.2% to 14.5%]), of whom 175 (86.2% [95% CI 81.5% to 91.0%]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4% (95% CI 18.2% to 22.5%) (274/1,344) and 29.6% (95% CI 23.3% to 35.8% [60/203]) versus 9.4% (95% CI 5.8% to 13.1%) (23/244) and 17.1% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1% [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0% [95% CI 6.2% to 14.8%] and 12.5% [95% CI 6.3% to 19.4%], respectively).
Conclusion |
Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Please see page 554 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
| Supervising editor: Alan E. Jones, MD |
|
| Author contributions: SLP, AD, and RB conceived the study. MB conducted the statistical analyses. SLP drafted the article and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. SLP takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
| All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
| Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
|
| Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide 3SFPP87 to Annals on this particular article. |
|
| A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 70 - N° 4
P. 553 - octobre 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- An Emergency Department Validation of the SEP-3 Sepsis and Septic Shock Definitions and Comparison With 1992 Consensus Definitions
- Daniel J. Henning, Michael A. Puskarich, Wesley H. Self, Michael D. Howell, Michael W. Donnino, Donald M. Yealy, Alan E. Jones, Nathan I. Shapiro
- HIV Prevention and Treatment: The Evolving Role of the Emergency Department
- Kristi Stanley, Meredith Lora, Stephen Merjavy, Jennifer Chang, Sanjay Arora, Michael Menchine, Kathleen R. Jacobson
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?