Background Sepsis is the leading cause of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Expediting its diagnosis, largely determined by clinical assessment, improves survival. Predictive and explanatory modelling of sepsis in the critically ill commonly bases both outcome definition and predictions on clinical criteria for consensus definitions of sepsis, leading to circularity. As a remedy, we collected ground truth labels for sepsis. Methods In the Ground Truth for Sepsis Questionnaire (GTSQ), senior attending physicians in the ICU documented daily their opinion on each patient’s condition regarding sepsis as a five-category working diagnosis and nine related items. Working diagnosis groups were described and compared and their SOFA-scores analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model. Agreement and discriminatory performance measures for clinical criteria of sepsis and GTSQ labels as reference class were derived. Results We analyzed 7291 questionnaires and 761 complete encounters from the first survey year. Editing rates for all items were > 90%, and responses were consistent with current understanding of critical illness pathophysiology, including sepsis pathogenesis. Interrater agreement for presence and absence of sepsis was almost perfect but only slight for suspected infection. ICU mortality was 19.5% in encounters with SIRS as the “worst” working diagnosis compared to 5.9% with sepsis and 5.9% with severe sepsis without differences in admission and maximum SOFA. Compared to sepsis, proportions of GTSQs with SIRS plus acute organ dysfunction were equal and macrocirculatory abnormalities higher (p < 0.0001). SIRS proportionally ranked above sepsis in daily assessment of illness severity (p < 0.0001). Separate analyses of neurosurgical referrals revealed similar differences. Discriminatory performance of Sepsis-1/2 and Sepsis-3 compared to GTSQ labels was similar with sensitivities around 70% and specificities 92%. Essentially no difference between the prevalence of SIRS and SOFA ≥ 2 yielded sensitivities and specificities for detecting sepsis onset close to 55% and 83%, respectively. Conclusions GTSQ labels are a valid measure of sepsis in the ICU. They reveal suspicion of infection as an unclear clinical concept and refute an illness severity hierarchy in the SIRS-sepsis-severe sepsis spectrum. Ground truth challenges the accuracy of Sepsis-1/2 and Sepsis-3 in detecting sepsis onset. It is an indispensable intermediate step towards advancing diagnosis and therapy in the ICU and, potentially, other health care settings.
Data on sepsis in patients with a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) are scarce. We assessed the impact of different sepsis criteria on the outcome in an SAH cohort. Adult patients admitted to our ICU with a spontaneous SAH between 11/2014 and 11/2018 were retrospectively included. In patients developing an infection, different criteria for sepsis diagnosis (Sepsis-1, Sepsis-3_original, Sepsis-3_modified accounting for SAH-specific therapy, alternative sepsis criteria compiled of consensus conferences) were applied and their impact on functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) on hospital discharge and in-hospital mortality was evaluated. Of 270 SAH patients, 129 (48%) developed an infection. Depending on the underlying criteria, the incidence of sepsis and septic shock ranged between 21–46% and 9–39%. In multivariate logistic regression, the Sepsis-1 criteria were not associated with the outcome. The Sepsis-3 criteria were not associated with the functional outcome, but in shock with mortality. Alternative sepsis criteria were associated with mortality for sepsis and in shock with mortality and the functional outcome. While Sepsis-1 criteria were irrelevant for the outcome in SAH patients, septic shock, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria, adversely impacted survival. This impact was higher for the modified Sepsis-3 criteria, accounting for SAH-specific treatment. Modified Sepsis-3 and alternative sepsis criteria diagnosed septic conditions of a higher relevance for outcomes in patients with an SAH.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.