Rhee Chanu, Klompas Michael
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(Suppl 1):S89-S100. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.51.
Numerous studies suggest that the incidence of sepsis has been steadily increasing over the past several decades while mortality rates are falling. However, reliably assessing trends in sepsis epidemiology is challenging due to changing diagnosis and coding practices over time. Ongoing efforts by clinicians, administrators, policy makers, and patient advocates to increase sepsis awareness, screening, and recognition are leading to more patients being labeled with sepsis. Subjective clinical definitions and heterogeneous presentations also allow for wide discretion in diagnosing sepsis rather than specific infections alone or non-specific syndromes. These factors create a potential ascertainment bias whereby the inclusion of less severely ill patients in sepsis case counts over time leads to a perceived increase in sepsis incidence and decrease in sepsis mortality rates. Analyses that rely on administrative data alone are further confounded by changing coding practices in response to new policies, financial incentives, and efforts to improve documentation. An alternate strategy for measuring sepsis incidence, outcomes, and trends is to use objective and consistent clinical criteria rather than administrative codes or registries to identify sepsis. This is feasible using data routinely found in electronic health record systems, such as blood culture draws and sustained courses of antibiotics to identify infection and laboratory values, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation to measure acute organ dysfunction. Recent surveillance studies using this approach suggest that sepsis incidence and mortality rates have been essentially stable over the past decade. In this review, we summarize the major epidemiologic studies of sepsis trends, potential biases in these analyses, and the recent change in the surveillance paradigm toward using objective clinical data from electronic health records to more accurately characterize sepsis trends.
大量研究表明,在过去几十年里,脓毒症的发病率一直在稳步上升,而死亡率却在下降。然而,由于诊断和编码方法随时间变化,可靠评估脓毒症流行病学趋势具有挑战性。临床医生、管理人员、政策制定者和患者权益倡导者不断努力提高对脓毒症的认识、筛查和识别能力,导致更多患者被诊断为脓毒症。主观的临床定义和多样化的表现也使得在诊断脓毒症时存在很大的自由裁量权,而不仅仅是针对特定感染或非特异性综合征。这些因素造成了一种潜在的确定偏倚,即随着时间的推移,脓毒症病例数中纳入病情较轻的患者,导致脓毒症发病率的上升和死亡率的下降被高估。仅依赖行政数据的分析因编码方法随新政策、经济激励措施以及改善文档记录的努力而不断变化而更加复杂。另一种衡量脓毒症发病率、结果和趋势的策略是使用客观一致的临床标准,而不是行政代码或登记系统来识别脓毒症。利用电子健康记录系统中常规收集的数据,如血培养结果和持续使用抗生素的疗程来识别感染,以及利用实验室检查值、血管活性药物和机械通气来衡量急性器官功能障碍,这是可行的。最近使用这种方法的监测研究表明,在过去十年中,脓毒症的发病率和死亡率基本稳定。在这篇综述中,我们总结了脓毒症趋势的主要流行病学研究、这些分析中潜在的偏倚,以及监测范式最近的变化,即使用电子健康记录中的客观临床数据来更准确地描述脓毒症趋势。