Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Crit Care Med. 2021 Jul 1;49(7):e673-e682. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004968.
Recent sepsis studies have defined patients as "infected" using a combination of culture and antibiotic orders rather than billing data. However, the accuracy of these definitions is unclear. We aimed to compare the accuracy of different established criteria for identifying infected patients using detailed chart review.
Retrospective observational study.
Six hospitals from three health systems in Illinois.
Adult admissions with blood culture or antibiotic orders, or Angus International Classification of Diseases infection codes and death were eligible for study inclusion as potentially infected patients. Nine-hundred to 1,000 of these admissions were randomly selected from each health system for chart review, and a proportional number of patients who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria were also included and deemed not infected.
None.
The accuracy of published billing code criteria by Angus et al and electronic health record criteria by Rhee et al and Seymour et al (Sepsis-3) was determined using the manual chart review results as the gold standard. A total of 5,215 patients were included, with 2,874 encounters analyzed via chart review and a proportional 2,341 added who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria. In the study cohort, 27.5% of admissions had at least one infection. This was most similar to the percentage of admissions with blood culture orders (26.8%), Angus infection criteria (28.7%), and the Sepsis-3 criteria (30.4%). Sepsis-3 criteria was the most sensitive (81%), followed by Angus (77%) and Rhee (52%), while Rhee (97%) and Angus (90%) were more specific than the Sepsis-3 criteria (89%). Results were similar for patients with organ dysfunction during their admission.
Published criteria have a wide range of accuracy for identifying infected patients, with the Sepsis-3 criteria being the most sensitive and Rhee criteria being the most specific. These findings have important implications for studies investigating the burden of sepsis on a local and national level.
最近的脓毒症研究使用培养物和抗生素医嘱的组合而非计费数据来定义“感染”患者。然而,这些定义的准确性尚不清楚。我们旨在通过详细的图表审查来比较不同已确立标准识别感染患者的准确性。
回顾性观察性研究。
伊利诺伊州三个医疗系统的六家医院。
入选标准为有血培养或抗生素医嘱,或有 Angus 国际疾病分类感染代码和死亡的成年患者。从每个医疗系统中随机选择 900-1000 例符合入选标准的患者进行图表审查,同时还纳入了数量相当的不符合图表审查入选标准的患者,认为这些患者没有感染。
无。
采用手工图表审查结果作为金标准,确定 Angus 等人的已发表计费代码标准、Rhee 等人和 Seymour 等人的电子健康记录标准(Sepsis-3)的准确性。共纳入 5215 例患者,其中 2874 例经图表审查分析,比例相当的 2341 例患者因不符合图表审查入选标准而添加。在研究队列中,27.5%的入院患者至少有一种感染。这与血培养医嘱的入院率(26.8%)、Angus 感染标准(28.7%)和 Sepsis-3 标准(30.4%)最相似。Sepsis-3 标准的敏感性最高(81%),其次是 Angus(77%)和 Rhee(52%),而 Rhee(97%)和 Angus(90%)的特异性均高于 Sepsis-3 标准(89%)。在入院期间存在器官功能障碍的患者中,结果也相似。
已发表的标准对识别感染患者的准确性差异较大,其中 Sepsis-3 标准的敏感性最高,Rhee 标准的特异性最高。这些发现对研究当地和全国脓毒症负担具有重要意义。