Comparison of the Performance Between Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 in ICUs in China: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
- PMID: 28448400
- PMCID: PMC5516667
- DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000868
Comparison of the Performance Between Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 in ICUs in China: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Abstract
The definition of sepsis was updated to sepsis-3 in February 2016. However, the performance of the previous and new definition of sepsis remains unclear in China. This was a retrospective multicenter study in six intensive care unit (ICUs) from five university-affiliated hospitals to compare the performance between sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 in China. From May 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016, 496 patients were enrolled consecutively. Data were extracted from the electronic clinical records. We evaluated the performance of sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) to predict 28-day mortality rates. Of 496 enrolled patients, 186 (37.5%) were diagnosed with sepsis according to sepsis-1, while 175 (35.3%) fulfilled the criteria of sepsis-3. The AUROC of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is significantly smaller than that of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) (0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.64] vs. 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77], P = 0.008) to predict 28-day mortality rates of infected patients. Moreover, 5.9% infected patients (11 patients) were diagnosed as sepsis according to sepsis-1 but not to sepsis-3. The APACHE II, SOFA scores, and mortality rate of the 11 patients were significantly lower than of patients whose sepsis was defined by both the previous and new criteria (8.6±3.5 vs. 16.3±6.2, P = < 0.001; 1 (0-1) vs. 6 (4-8), P = <0.001; 0.0 vs. 33.1%, P = 0.019). In addition, the APACHE II, length of stay in ICU, and 28-day mortality rate of septic patients rose gradually corresponding with the raise in SOFA score (but not the SIRS score). Sepsis-3 performed better than sepsis-1 in the study samples in ICUs in China.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1546–1554. - PubMed
-
- Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001; 29:1303–1310. - PubMed
-
- Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, Gerlach H, Moreno R, Carlet J, Le Gall JR, Payen D. Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients Investigators. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:344–353. - PubMed
-
- Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, Angus DC, Reinhart K. International forum of acute care trialists. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193:259–272. - PubMed
-
- Vincent JL, Mira JP, Antonelli M. Sepsis: older and newer concepts. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4:237–240. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
