Comparison of Sepsis Definitions as Automated Criteria
- PMID: 33591014
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004875
Comparison of Sepsis Definitions as Automated Criteria
Abstract
Objectives: Assess the impact of heterogeneity among established sepsis criteria (Sepsis-1, Sepsis-3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1) through the comparison of corresponding sepsis cohorts.
Design: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from electronic health record.
Setting: Single, tertiary-care center in St. Louis, MO.
Patients: Adult, nonsurgical inpatients admitted between January 1, 2012, and January 6, 2018.
Interventions: None.
Measurements and main results: In the electronic health record data, 286,759 encounters met inclusion criteria across the study period. Application of established sepsis criteria yielded cohorts varying in prevalence: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (4.4%), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (4.8%), International Classification of Disease code (7.2%), Sepsis-3 (7.5%), and Sepsis-1 (11.3%). Between the two modern established criteria, Sepsis-3 (n = 21,550) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (n = 12,494), the size of the overlap was 7,763. The sepsis cohorts also varied in time from admission to sepsis onset (hr): Sepsis-1 (2.9), Sepsis-3 (4.1), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (4.6), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (7.6); sepsis discharge International Classification of Disease code rate: Sepsis-1 (37.4%), Sepsis-3 (40.1%), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (48.5%), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (54.5%); and inhospital mortality rate: Sepsis-1 (13.6%), Sepsis-3 (18.8%), International Classification of Disease code (20.4%), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (22.5%), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (24.1%).
Conclusions: The application of commonly used sepsis definitions on a single population produced sepsis cohorts with low agreement, significantly different baseline demographics, and clinical outcomes.
Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Michelson received funding as a shareholder of Pfizer. Dr. Lai received funding as a shareholder of Altria Group, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Barnes Group, Carnival Corp, Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, Walt Disney, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Caterpillar, McDonald’s Corp, Ubiquiti, Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, and Yum! Brands. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Torio C, Moore BJ. National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2013, Statistical Brief #204. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2006
-
- Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016; 315:801–810
-
- Saria S, Henry KE. Too many definitions of sepsis: Can machine learning leverage the electronic health record to increase accuracy and bring consensus? Crit Care Med. 2020; 48:137–141
-
- Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM consensus conference committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992; 101:1644–1655
-
- Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. International Sepsis Definitions Conference2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS international sepsis definitions conference. Intensive Care Med. 2003; 29:530–538
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
