Sterling Sarah A, Puskarich Michael A, Glass Andrew F, Guirgis Faheem, Jones Alan E
1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Sep;45(9):1436-1442. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002512.
The Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force (Sepsis-3) recently recommended changes to the definitions of sepsis. The impact of these changes remains unclear. Our objective was to determine the outcomes of patients meeting Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria versus patients meeting the "old" (1991) criteria of septic shock only.
Secondary analysis of two clinical trials of early septic shock resuscitation.
Large academic emergency departments in the United States.
Patients with suspected infection, more than or equal to two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after fluid resuscitation.
Patients were further categorized as Sepsis-3 septic shock if they demonstrated hypotension, received vasopressors, and exhibited a lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. We compared in-hospital mortality in patients who met the old definition only with those who met the Sepsis-3 criteria.
Four hundred seventy patients were included in the present analysis. Two hundred (42.5%) met Sepsis-3 criteria, whereas 270 (57.4%) met only the old definition. Patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria demonstrated higher severity of illness by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (9 vs 5; p < 0.001) and mortality (29% vs 14%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of 127 patients meeting only the old definition demonstrated significant mortality benefit following implementation of a quantitative resuscitation protocol (35% vs 10%; p = 0.006).
In this analysis, 57% of patients meeting old definition for septic shock did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria. Although Sepsis-3 criteria identified a group of patients with increased organ failure and higher mortality, those patients who met the old criteria and not Sepsis-3 criteria still demonstrated significant organ failure and 14% mortality rate.
第三届国际脓毒症共识定义工作组(脓毒症-3)最近建议对脓毒症的定义进行修改。这些修改的影响尚不清楚。我们的目的是确定符合脓毒症-3感染性休克标准的患者与仅符合“旧”(1991年)感染性休克标准的患者的预后情况。
两项早期感染性休克复苏临床试验的二次分析。
美国大型学术急诊科。
疑似感染、满足或超过两项全身炎症反应综合征标准且液体复苏后收缩压低于90 mmHg的患者。
如果患者出现低血压、接受血管活性药物治疗且乳酸水平大于2 mmol/L,则进一步分类为脓毒症-3感染性休克。我们比较了仅符合旧定义的患者与符合脓毒症-3标准的患者的院内死亡率。
本分析纳入了470例患者。200例(42.5%)符合脓毒症-3标准,而270例(57.4%)仅符合旧定义。符合脓毒症-3标准的患者序贯器官衰竭评估评分显示疾病严重程度更高(9分对5分;p<0.001),死亡率也更高(29%对14%;p<0.001)。对127例仅符合旧定义的患者进行亚组分析显示,实施定量复苏方案后死亡率有显著改善(35%对10%;p = 0.006)。
在此分析中,57%符合感染性休克旧定义的患者不符合脓毒症-3标准。尽管脓毒症-3标准识别出了一组器官衰竭增加且死亡率更高的患者,但那些符合旧标准而不符合脓毒症-3标准的患者仍表现出显著的器官衰竭,死亡率为14%。