PIRO and sepsis stratification: reality or a mirage?

Systematic Review on the Effects of Prompt Antibiotic Treatment on Survival in Septic Shock and Sepsis Patients in Different Hospital Settings

This study aims to determine the impact of prompt administration of antibiotics in evaluating the prognosis of patients with septic shock or sepsis. On January 1, 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for English-language articles regarding when antibiotics should be administered to patients with septic shock or sepsis. These articles were required to be published between 2010 and 2021. The primary objective was sudden or expected death from any cause at a specified time. In the study, 154,330 patients from 35 sepsis trials were included. In 19 trials, the effectiveness of antibiotics administered to 20,062 patients was evaluated. Of those, 16,652 received the correct medications. In 24 studies, the length of time it took to administer antibiotics was associated with an increased mortality rate. In fourteen studies, the time limits associated with patient outcomes ranged from 1 to 125 minutes to three to six hours. In eight studies, there were hourly delays, and in two, the time it took to receive an antibiotic played a role. Separately analyzed, the outcomes for septic shock (12,756 patients in 11 trials) and sepsis (24,282 patients in six studies) were identical. Two-thirds of sepsis studies discovered a correlation between early antibiotic treatment and the patient's prognosis. However, antimicrobial timing metrics varied significantly between studies, and there were no clear time limits.

Analysis of trends in sepsis mortality in Brazil and by regions from 2010 to 2019

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the profile of inpatients and trend of sepsis mortality in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), throughout Brazil, and in its regions separately, from 2010 to 2019.

METHODS

Observational, analytical and retrospective study of secondary data obtained through consultation to the Sistema de Informação Hospitalar (Hospital Information System). All incoming septicemia notifications from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 were included. The following sociodemographic variables were used: sex, age, race, region and federative unit of residence. For data analysis, we used mortality and hospitalization coefficient, relative risk and Joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1,044,227 cases of sepsis in Brazil, yielding a mean prevalence coefficient of 51.3/100 thousand inhabitants. There were 463,000 deaths from sepsis recorded, with a mean prevalence coefficient of 22.8 deaths/100,000 inhabitants. The highest rates occurred among the elderly, of brown race, and there was no significant difference between genders. The Southeast region accounted for the highest rates of hospitalization and deaths. A general trend toward increased mortality was observed in the period studied.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity of Brazil should be considered regarding socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, and differences in health investment and underreporting between regions, in order to understand the disease’s epidemiological course. Finally, these findings should be correlated with other studies, in an effort to understand the behavior of the disease, and provide inputs for public and private policies in order to reduce the expressiveness of cases and deaths from sepsis in Brazil.

Association between site of infection and in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis admitted to emergency departments of tertiary hospitals in Medellin, Colombia

Objective

To determine the association between the primary site of infection and in-hospital mortality as the main outcome, or the need for admission to the intensive care unit as a secondary outcome, in patients with sepsis admitted to the emergency department.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort. Patients included in the study were older than 18 years with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock who were admitted to the emergency departments of three tertiary care hospitals. Of the 5022 eligible participants, 2510 were included. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed for mortality.

Results

The most common site of infection was the urinary tract, present in 27.8% of the cases, followed by pneumonia (27.5%) and intra-abdominal focus (10.8%). In 5.4% of the cases, no definite site of infection was identified on admission. Logistic regression revealed a significant association between the following sites of infection and in-hospital mortality when using the urinary infection group as a reference: pneumonia (OR 3.4; 95%CI, 2.2 - 5.2; p < 0.001), skin and soft tissues (OR 2.6; 95%CI, 1.4 - 5.0; p = 0.003), bloodstream (OR 2.0; 95%CI, 1.1 - 3.6; p = 0.018), without specific focus (OR 2.0; 95%CI, 1.1 - 3.8; p = 0.028), and intra-abdominal focus (OR 1.9; 95%CI, 1.1 - 3.3; p = 0.024).

Conclusions

There is a significant association between the different sites of infection and in-hospital mortality or the need for admission to an intensive care unit in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Urinary tract infection shows the lowest risk, which should be considered in prognostic models of these conditions.

AME evidence series 001-The Society for Translational Medicine: clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and early identification of sepsis in the hospital

Sepsis is a heterogeneous disease caused by an infection stimulus that triggers several complex local and systemic immuno-inflammatory reactions, which results in multiple organ dysfunction and significant morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of sepsis is challenging because there is no gold standard for diagnosis. As a result, the clinical diagnosis of sepsis is ever changing to meet the clinical and research requirements. Moreover, although there are many novel biomarkers and screening tools for predicting the risk of sepsis, the diagnostic performance and effectiveness of these measures are less than satisfactory, and there is insufficient evidence to recommend clinical use of these new techniques. As a consequence, diagnostic criteria for sepsis need regular revision to cope with emerging evidence. This review aims to present the most updated information on diagnosis and early recognition of sepsis. Recommendations for clinical use of different diagnostic tools rely on the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Because most of the studies were observational and did not allow a reliable assessment of these tools, a two-step inference approach was employed. Future trials need to confirm or refute a particular index test and should directly explore relevant patient outcome parameters.