Challenges in assessing the burden of sepsis and understanding the inequalities of sepsis outcomes between National Health Systems: secular trends in sepsis and infection incidence and mortality in Germany

Abstract

PurposeSepsis contributes considerably to global morbidity and mortality, while reasons for its increasing incidence remain unclear. We assessed risk adjusted secular trends in sepsis and infection epidemiology in Germany.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using nationwide German hospital discharge data. We assessed incidence, outcomes and trends of hospital-treated sepsis and infections between 2010 and 2015. Sepsis was identified by explicit ICD-10 sepsis codes. As sensitivity analysis, results were compared with sepsis cases identified by implicit sepsis coding (combined infection and organ dysfunction codes).ResultsAmong 18 664 877 hospital admissions in 2015, 4 213 116 (22.6%) patients had at least one infection code. There were 320 198 patients that had explicit sepsis codes including 136 542 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock; 183 656 patients were coded as sepsis without organ dysfunction. For patients with explicitly coded sepsis (including severe sepsis), or with severe sepsis alone, mortality rates over the period 2010–2015 decreased from 26.6 to 23.5%, and from 47.8 to 41.7%, respectively.ConclusionsSepsis and infection remain significant causes of hospital admission and death in Germany. Sepsis-related mortality is higher and has declined to a lesser degree than in other high-income countries. Although infection rates steadily increased, the observed annual increase of sepsis cases seems to result, to a considerable degree, from improved coding of sepsis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5377-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Validation of automated sepsis surveillance based on the Sepsis-3 clinical criteria against physician record review in a general hospital population: observational study using electronic health records data

“…Initiatives to monitor sepsis incidence have often focussed on using administrative hospital data, such as discharge diagnosis, trigger based audits or reporting to clinical databases, all carrying risk of bias and making comparisons between hospitals difficult 28–30. The use of ICD-codes for sepsis surveillance is associated with considerable uncertainty31 32 and studies indicate that some of the increased incidence of sepsis during the last decade can be explained by changes in coding practices 33–37. Overall, epidemiological surveillance based on explicit sepsis ICD-codes seems to underestimate the incidence of sepsis compared with using clinical data,15 and in our study only 13.4% of sepsis patients had an ICD-code indicating sepsis.…”

Identifying adults with sepsis, bedside tools versus administrative data: a cohort study

“…The growth in coding for sepsis observed in the literature has contributed to reporting of significant increases in documented sepsis incidence. 18,34,35 Such changes compromise the use of sepsis codes as a robust and reliable measure of sepsis incidence and underline the need for accurate sepsis epidemiology based on a combined measure which is resistant to bias. Our finding of lack of sensitivity in sepsis codes and lack of specificity in infection codes, supports recent concerns about the quality of coding, its impact on epidemiological trends and potential for misinformed influence on policy and practice.…”

Description of a Rat Model of Polymicrobial Abdominal Sepsis Mimicking Human Colon Perforation

“…Sepsis and septic shock frequently occur all over the world [1] and are associated with high mortality and unfavorable outcome [2,3]. Although great efforts are made to improve sepsis recognition and treatment, neither sepsis burden nor mortality has changed in the past decade [3].…”