Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined. Results There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 69.4% to 73.8%]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7% [95% CI 82.9% to 86.4%]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5% [95% CI 61.1% to 65.8%]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8% [95% CI 11.2% to 14.5%]), of whom 175 (86.2% [95% CI 81.5% to 91.0%]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4% (95% CI 18.2% to 22.5%) (274/1,344) and 29.6% (95% CI 23.3% to 35.8% [60/203]) versus 9.4% (95% CI 5.8% to 13.1%) (23/244) and 17.1% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1% [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0% [95% CI 6.2% to 14.8%] and 12.5% [95% CI 6.3% to 19.4%], respectively). Conclusion Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)553-561.e1
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume70
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2017

Cite this

@article{03e6f9ae6c1846fd8f0d478e8732e209,
title = "Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research",
abstract = "Study objective The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined. Results There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6{\%} [95{\%} confidence interval {CI} 69.4{\%} to 73.8{\%}]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7{\%} [95{\%} CI 82.9{\%} to 86.4{\%}]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5{\%} [95{\%} CI 61.1{\%} to 65.8{\%}]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8{\%} [95{\%} CI 11.2{\%} to 14.5{\%}]), of whom 175 (86.2{\%} [95{\%} CI 81.5{\%} to 91.0{\%}]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4{\%} (95{\%} CI 18.2{\%} to 22.5{\%}) (274/1,344) and 29.6{\%} (95{\%} CI 23.3{\%} to 35.8{\%} [60/203]) versus 9.4{\%} (95{\%} CI 5.8{\%} to 13.1{\%}) (23/244) and 17.1{\%} (95{\%} CI 15.1{\%} to 19.1{\%} [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0{\%} [95{\%} CI 6.2{\%} to 14.8{\%}] and 12.5{\%} [95{\%} CI 6.3{\%} to 19.4{\%}], respectively). Conclusion Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.",
author = "Peake, {Sandra L.} and Anthony Delaney and Michael Bailey and Rinaldo Bellomo",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.007",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "553--561.e1",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research. / Peake, Sandra L.; Delaney, Anthony; Bailey, Michael; Bellomo, Rinaldo.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 4, 01.10.2017, p. 553-561.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research

AU - Peake, Sandra L.

AU - Delaney, Anthony

AU - Bailey, Michael

AU - Bellomo, Rinaldo

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Study objective The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined. Results There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 69.4% to 73.8%]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7% [95% CI 82.9% to 86.4%]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5% [95% CI 61.1% to 65.8%]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8% [95% CI 11.2% to 14.5%]), of whom 175 (86.2% [95% CI 81.5% to 91.0%]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4% (95% CI 18.2% to 22.5%) (274/1,344) and 29.6% (95% CI 23.3% to 35.8% [60/203]) versus 9.4% (95% CI 5.8% to 13.1%) (23/244) and 17.1% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1% [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0% [95% CI 6.2% to 14.8%] and 12.5% [95% CI 6.3% to 19.4%], respectively). Conclusion Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.

AB - Study objective The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined. Results There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 69.4% to 73.8%]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7% [95% CI 82.9% to 86.4%]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5% [95% CI 61.1% to 65.8%]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8% [95% CI 11.2% to 14.5%]), of whom 175 (86.2% [95% CI 81.5% to 91.0%]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4% (95% CI 18.2% to 22.5%) (274/1,344) and 29.6% (95% CI 23.3% to 35.8% [60/203]) versus 9.4% (95% CI 5.8% to 13.1%) (23/244) and 17.1% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1% [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0% [95% CI 6.2% to 14.8%] and 12.5% [95% CI 6.3% to 19.4%], respectively). Conclusion Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020424121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.007

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 553-561.e1

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 4

ER -