To SIRS With Love-An Open Letter

Outcomes and Predictors of 28-Day Mortality in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies and Septic Shock Defined by Sepsis-3 Criteria

BACKGROUND

To describe short-term outcomes and independent predictors of 28-dayx mortality in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and septic shock defined by the new Third International Consensus Definitions (Sepsis-3) criteria.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock from April 2016 to March 2019. Demographic and clinical features and short-term outcomes were collected. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient characteristics, logistic regression to identify predictors of 28-day mortality, and Kaplan-Meier plots to assess survival.

RESULTS

Among the 459 hematologic patients with septic shock admitted to the ICU, 109 (23.7%) had received hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median age was 63 years (range, 18-89 years), and 179 (39%) were women. Nonsurvivors had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (P=.007), longer length of stay before ICU admission (P=.01), and greater illness severity at diagnosis and throughout the hospital course (P<.001). The mortality rate at 28 days was 67.8% and increased with increasing sequential organ failure assessment score on admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20), respiratory failure (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49-6.51), and maximum lactate level (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22). Aminoglycosides administration (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69), serum albumin (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65) were associated with lower 28-day mortality. Life support limitations were present in 81.6% of patients at death. At 90 days, 19.4% of the patients were alive.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite efforts to enhance survival, septic shock in patients with hematologic malignancies is still associated with high mortality rates and poor 90-day survival. These results demonstrate the need for an urgent call to action with higher awareness, including the further evaluation of interventions such as earlier ICU admission, aminoglycosides administration, and G-CSF treatment.

Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients-Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria

Background

Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis.

Methods

Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS≥2/SOFA≥2/SOFA_change≥2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria.

Results

Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS≥2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA≥2 in 99% and SOFA_change≥2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were ≥2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS≥2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02).

Conclusions

SOFA≥2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS≥2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS≥2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria.

Heart Rate Variability, Clinical and Laboratory Measures to Predict Future Deterioration in Patients Presenting With Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with sepsis can be challenging. We derived and evaluated performance of a predictive model containing clinical, laboratory, and heart rate variability (HRV) measures to quantify risk of deterioration in this population.

METHODS

ED patients aged 21 and older satisfying the 1992 consensus conference criteria for sepsis and able to consent (directly or through a surrogate) were enrolled (n = 1,247). Patients had clinical, laboratory, and HRV data recorded within 1 h of ED presentation, and were followed to identify deterioration within 72 h.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients had complete data, of whom 68 (8%) reached at least one endpoint. Optimal predictive performance was derived from a combination of laboratory values and HRV metrics with an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92). This combination of variables was superior to clinical (AUROC = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.54-0.83), laboratory (AUROC = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.63-0.90), and HRV measures (AUROC = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) alone. The HRV+LAB model identified a high-risk cohort of patients (14% of all patients) with a 4.3-fold (95% CI, 3.2-5.4) increased risk of deterioration (incidence of deterioration: 35%), as well as a low-risk group (61% of all patients) with 0.2-fold (95% CI 0.1-0.4) risk of deterioration (incidence of deterioration: 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A model that combines HRV and laboratory values may help ED physicians evaluate risk of deterioration in patients with sepsis and merits validation and further evaluation.

Sepsis - What's new in 2019?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sepsis-3 guidelines have implications in a deeper understanding of the biopathology of the disease. Further, the review focuses on timely topics and new literature on fluid resuscitation, the value of steroids in sepsis, and new therapeutic options such as angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine as well as the emerging role of procalcitonin (PCT) in managing antibiotics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Traditional therapies such as type of crystalloid fluid administration and steroid therapy for sepsis are currently under re-evaluation. Angiotensin II is investigated for reversing vasodilatory shock. The role of capillary endothelium leak and cellular metabolism can be affected by vitamin C and thiamine levels. Biomarker level trends, specifically PCT, can aid clinical suspicion of infection.

SUMMARY

Sepsis-3 shifts the focus from a noninfectious inflammatory process and an emphasis on a dysregulated host response to infection. Hyperchloremic crystalloid resuscitation is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Steroid administration can reverse shock physiology; however, mortality benefits remain uncertain. Angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine are novel treatment options that need further validation. PCT assays can help discern between infectious and noninfectious inflammation.

[New Sepsis-3 definition : Do we have to treat sepsis before we can diagnose it from now on?]

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) have been available since the beginning of 2016. SEPSIS-3 completely replaces the old SIRS criteria in the definition of sepsis and defines sepsis from now on as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". However, it seems questionable whether in clinical practice the new definition is really superior to the old one. The most important question is the following: Is it helpful to have a definition that first recognizes a patient once organ dysfunction has occurred and the patient already needs intensive care?

Sepsis-3 Septic Shock Criteria and Associated Mortality Among Infected Hospitalized Patients Assessed by a Rapid Response Team

BACKGROUND

Rapid response teams (RRTs) respond to hospitalized patients with deterioration and help determine subsequent management, including ICU admission. In such patients with sepsis and septic shock, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) clinical criteria have a potential role in detection, risk stratification, and prognostication; however, their accuracy in comparison with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based septic shock criteria is unknown. We sought to evaluate prognostic accuracy of the Sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among infected hospitalized patients with acute deterioration.

METHODS

Prospectively collected registry data (2012-2016) from two hospitals, including consecutive hospitalized patients with suspected infection seen by the RRT. We compared the Sepsis-3 criteria with the SIRS-based criteria for prediction of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,708 included patients, 418 (24.5%) met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria, whereas 545 (31.9%) met the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria had higher in-hospital mortality (40.9% vs 33.5%; P < .0001), ICU admission (99.5% vs 89.2%; P < .001), and discharge rates to long-term care (66.3% vs 53.7%; P < .0001) than patients meeting the SIRS-based septic shock criteria, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment were 64.9% and 92.2% for prediction of in-hospital mortality, whereas SIRS criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.6% and 23.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients with deterioration from suspected infection had higher risk of in-hospital mortality if they met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria than the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Therefore, use of the Sepsis-3 criteria may be preferable in the prognostication and disposition of these patients who are critically ill.

SIRS in the Time of Sepsis-3

Severe sepsis is a common, deadly, and diagnostically vexing condition. Recent recommendations for diagnosing sepsis, referred to as consensus guidelines, provide a definition of sepsis and remove the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as a component of the diagnostic process. A concise definition of sepsis is welcomed. However, the approach to developing these guidelines, although thorough, had weaknesses. Emphasis is placed on mortality prediction rather than on early diagnosis. Diagnostic criteria are recommended to replace current criteria without evidence of any effect that their use would have on mortality. SIRS is a prevalent feature of patients with sepsis, should remain an important component of the diagnostic process, and remains a valuable term for discussing patients with life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by infection.