Beadle Jessica L, Perman Sarah M, Pennington Justin, Gaieski David F
Christiana Care Health System Wilmington Delaware USA.
Yale University School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA.
Acute Med Surg. 2023 Nov 2;10(1):e902. doi: 10.1002/ams2.902. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.
We sought to collect granular data on temperature burden to further explore existing conflicting information on the relationship between temperature alterations and outcomes in patients with sepsis requiring hospital admission.
This was a prospective cohort study that enrolled a convenience sample of patients with sepsis or septic shock admitted to the hospital from the emergency department (ED). A "unit of temperature burden (UTB)" was defined as >1°C (1.8°F) above or below 37°C (98.6°F) for 1 min. Fever burden was defined as the number of UTBs >38°C (100.4°F). The primary objective was to calculate the fever burden in patients with sepsis during their ED stay. This was analyzed for patients who present to triage febrile or hypothermic and also for those who developed temperature abnormalities during their ED stay. The secondary objectives were correlating fever and hypothermia burden with in-hospital mortality, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Associated) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score and identification of patients who may benefit from early implementation of targeted temperature management.
A total of 256 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 60.1 ± 18.4 years; 46% were female and 29.6% were black. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) fever burden for the fever in triage cohort ( = 99) was 364.6 (174.3-716.8) UTB and for the no fever in triage cohort ( = 157) was 179.3 (80.9-374.0) UTB (p = 0.005). The two groups had similar in-hospital mortality (6.1 vs 8.3%; p = 0.5). The median fever burden for the fever anytime cohort was 303.8 (IQR 138.8-607.9) UTB and they had lower mortality than the no fever anytime cohort (4.7% vs 11.2%; p = 0.052). Patients with fever at triage had higher mean SIRS criteria than those without (2.8 vs 2.0; p < 0.001) while qSOFA points were similar (p = 0.199). A total of 27 patients had hypothermia during their ED stay and these patients were older with higher mean SIRS criteria.
Patients with sepsis and septic shock have a significant temperature burden in the ED. When comparing patients who had fever at any time during their ED stay with those who never had a fever, a trend toward an inverse relationship between fever burden and mortality was found.
我们试图收集关于体温负担的详细数据,以进一步探究现有相互矛盾的信息,这些信息涉及体温变化与因脓毒症需住院治疗的患者预后之间的关系。
这是一项前瞻性队列研究,纳入了从急诊科(ED)入院的脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的便利样本。“体温负担单位(UTB)”定义为高于或低于37°C(98.6°F)1°C(1.8°F)达1分钟。发热负担定义为体温高于38°C(100.4°F)的UTB数量。主要目的是计算脓毒症患者在急诊科停留期间的发热负担。对分诊时发热或体温过低以及在急诊科停留期间出现体温异常的患者进行了分析。次要目的是将发热和体温过低负担与住院死亡率、全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准、快速序贯(脓毒症相关)器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分相关联,并识别可能从早期实施目标体温管理中获益的患者。
共有256名患者符合纳入标准。患者的平均年龄为60.1±18.4岁;46%为女性,29.6%为黑人。分诊队列中发热患者(n = 99)的发热负担中位数(四分位间距[IQR])为364.6(17,4.3 - 716.8)UTB,分诊队列中无发热患者(n = 157)的发热负担中位数为179.3(80.9 - 374.0)UTB(p = 0.005)。两组的住院死亡率相似(6.1%对8.3%;p = 0.5)。随时发热队列中发热负担的中位数为303.8(IQR 138.8 - 607.9)UTB,且他们的死亡率低于随时无发热队列(4.7%对11.2%;p = 0.052)。分诊时发热的患者平均SIRS标准高于无发热患者(2.8对2.0;p < 0.001),而qSOFA评分相似(p = 0.199)。共有27名患者在急诊科停留期间体温过低,这些患者年龄较大,平均SIRS标准较高。
脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者在急诊科有显著的体温负担。在比较急诊科停留期间随时发热的患者与从未发热的患者时,发现发热负担与死亡率之间存在负相关趋势。