Sex-based differences in ED management of critically ill patients with sepsis: a nationwide cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To compare management and outcomes for critically ill women and men with sepsis in the emergency medical services (EMS), the emergency department (ED) and the ICU.Methods
We used two prospectively compiled Swedish national quality registers, the National Quality Sepsis Registry and the Swedish Intensive Care Registry to identify a nationwide cohort of 2720 adults admitted to an ICU within 24 h of arrival to any of 32 EDs, with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock between 2008 and 2015.Results
Patients were 44.5% female. In the EMS, a higher fraction of men had all vital signs recorded-54.4 vs 49.9% (p = 0.02) and received IV fluids and oxygen-40.0 vs 34.8% (p = 0.02). In the ED, men had completed 1-h sepsis bundles in 41.5% of cases compared to 30.0% in women (p < 0.001), and shorter time to antibiotics-65 (IQR 30-136) vs 87 min (IQR 39-172) (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between men and women regarding ICU nursing workload, mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. In severity-adjusted multivariable analysis, OR for women achieving a completed sepsis bundle, compared to men was 0.64 (CI 0.51-0.81). Thirty-day mortality was 25.0% for women and 23.1% for men (p = 0.24). Adjusted OR for female death was 1.28 (CI 1.00-1.64), but the increased mortality was not mediated by differential bundle completion.Conclusions
Women and men with severe sepsis or septic shock received differential care in the ED, but this did not explain higher odds of death in women.
SUBMITTER: Sunden-Cullberg J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7103003 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Sex-based differences in ED management of critically ill patients with sepsis: a nationwide cohort study.
Sunden-Cullberg Jonas J Nilsson Anton A Inghammar Malin M
Intensive care medicine 20200123 4
<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare management and outcomes for critically ill women and men with sepsis in the emergency medical services (EMS), the emergency department (ED) and the ICU.<h4>Methods</h4>We used two prospectively compiled Swedish national quality registers, the National Quality Sepsis Registry and the Swedish Intensive Care Registry to identify a nationwide cohort of 2720 adults admitted to an ICU within 24 h of arrival to any of 32 EDs, with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator
2015-10-24 | E-GEOD-74224 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.
2010-05-25 | E-GEOD-6535 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples
2015-10-24 | GSE74224 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundEarly assessment and management of patients with sepsis can significantly reduce its high mortality rates and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.ObjectivesThe purposes of this review are to: (1) explore nurses' knowledge, attitude, practice, and perceived barriers and facilitators related to early recognition and management of sepsis, (2) explore different interventions directed at nurses to improve sepsis management.MethodsA systematic review method according to the PRISMA guidelines was used. An electronic search was conducted in March 2021 on several databases using combinations of keywords. Two researchers independently selected and screened the articles according to the eligibility criteria.ResultsNurses reported an adequate of knowledge in certain areas of sepsis assessment and management in critically ill adult patients. Also, nurses' attitudes toward sepsis assessment and management were positive in general, but they reported some misconceptions regarding antibiotic use for patients with sepsis, and that sepsis was inevitable for critically ill adult patients. Furthermore, nurses reported they either were not well-prepared or confident enough to effectively recognize and promptly manage sepsis. Also, there are different kinds of nurses' perceived barriers and facilitators related to sepsis assessment and management: nurse, patient, physician, and system-related. There are different interventions directed at nurses to help in improving nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of sepsis assessment and management. These interventions include education sessions, simulation, decision support or screening tools for sepsis, and evidence-based treatment protocols/guidelines.DiscussionOur findings could help hospital managers in developing continuous education and staff development training programs on assessing and managing sepsis in critical care patients.ConclusionNurses have poor to good knowledge, practices, and attitudes toward sepsis as well as report many barriers related to sepsis management in adult critically ill patients. Despite all education interventions, no study has collectively targeted critical care nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of sepsis management.
| S-EPMC9249173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. Keywords: disease state analysis, gram-positive sepsis, gram-negative sepsis
2007-12-01 | GSE6535 | GEO
Project description:Sepsis is a frequent complication in critically ill patients and highly heterogeneous that is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, especially in the elderly population. Utilizing RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) to analysis biological pathways is widely used in clinical and molecular genetics studies, but in elderly patients with sepsis are still lacking. Hence, we aim to investigate the mortality-relevant biological features and transcriptomic features in elderly patients who were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for sepsis.
2022-11-03 | GSE216902 | GEO
Project description:ObjectiveSepsis is the leading cause of death in intensive care units, and sepsis after trauma is associated with increased mortality rates. However, the characteristics of sepsis after trauma remain unknown, and the influence of sex on mortality remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the role of sex in in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis after trauma.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study involving several emergency hospitals (n=288) in Japan. The data of patients with trauma who developed sepsis after admission from 2004 to 2019 were obtained from the Japan Trauma Data Bank. We divided the patients into two groups according to sex and compared their in-hospital mortality. We also performed subgroup analysis limited to the elderly population (age ≥ 65 years) and evaluated in-hospital mortality between men and women.ResultsA total of 1935 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Of these, 1204 (62.2%) were allocated to the male group and 731 (37.8%) to the female group. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis showed a significantly lower risk of in-hospital mortality in the female group than in the male group (hazard ratio (HR): 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.89; p=0.001). In the subgroup analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazards still showed significantly lower risks of in-hospital mortality in the female group than in the male group (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.88; p=0.002).ConclusionThe present study shows a significantly increased survival in the female group when compared to that in the male group of patients with sepsis after trauma. The underlying mechanism remains unclear, and further investigations are required.
| S-EPMC8276106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSex-stratified medicine is an important aspect of precision medicine. We aimed to compare the incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury (AKI) for critically ill men and women with sepsis. Furthermore, the short-term mortality was compared between men and women with sepsis associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI).MethodThis was a retrospective study based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database. We used the multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent effect of sex on the incidence of SA-AKI. We further applied three machine learning methods (decision tree, random forest and extreme gradient boosting) to screen for the risk factors associated with SA-AKI in the total, men and women groups. We finally compared the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality between men and women with SA-AKI using propensity score matching.ResultsA total of 6463 patients were included in our study, including 3673 men and 2790 women. The incidence of SA-AKI was 83.8% for men and 82.1% for women. After adjustment for confounders, no significant association was observed between sex and the incidence of SA-AKI (odds ratio (OR), 1.137; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.949-1.361; p=0.163). The machine learning results revealed that body mass index, Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score, diuretic, Acute Physiology Score III and age were the most important risk factors of SA-AKI, irrespective of sex. After propensity score matching, men had similar ICU and hospital mortality to women.ConclusionsThe incidence and associated risk factors of SA-AKI are similar between men and women, and men and women with SA-AKI experience comparable rates of ICU and hospital mortality. Therefore, sex-related effects may play a minor role in developing SA-AKI. Our study helps to contribute to the knowledge gap between sex and SA-AKI.
| S-EPMC9329949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium among critically ill patients is common. Presence of delirium imparts a poorer prognosis to patients, including longer ICU and hospital length of stay, increased risk of institutionalization, higher health related costs, and elevated mortality. Even with such grave consequences, the rates of delirium diagnosis are dire. The importance of early recognition through validated tools and appropriate management of this life-threatening condition cannot be over emphasized. This article provides an overview of delirium pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management with a focus on critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC4224112 | biostudies-other
Project description:The presence of critically ill patients may impact care for other ED patients. We sought to evaluate whether the presence of a critically ill child was associated with the time to (1) receipt of the first medication among other patients, and (2) administration of diagnosis-specific medications.We performed a retrospective cohort study of all paediatric ED visits over 3?years. Patients were exposed if they arrived during the first hour of a critically ill patient's care. The primary outcome was the time from arrival to first medication administration. Secondary outcomes were time to corticosteroids in asthma and time to antibiotics for fever/neutropenia. We modelled times to medication using median regression, adjusting for demographics, arrival time and weekday, and census (number of patients in the ED).We analysed 170?112 visits. Median times to first medication for those exposed to 0, 1 and >1 simultaneous critically ill patients were 90?min (IQR 54-146), 96?min (IQR 58-157) and 113 min (IQR 72-166), respectively (p<0.001). The increase in time to corticosteroids among exposed patients versus unexposed was 6?min (IQR 2-14, p=0.11) and in time to antibiotic for fever/neutropenia was -4?min (IQR -4 to -11, p=0.13). Modelled time to first medication increased 3.1?min (95% CI 0.5 to 5.7) among all exposed patients (p=0.02). Time to first medication increased 15.3?min (95% CI 14.7 to 15.9) for each 10 patient increase in census.The presence of critically ill patients was associated with a delay in medication administration to others. Census independently predicted medication delays.
| S-EPMC5159286 | biostudies-literature