Discordant identification of pediatric severe sepsis by research and clinical definitions in the SPROUT international point prevalence study

Introduction: Consensus criteria for pediatric severe sepsis have standardized enrollment for research studies. However, the extent to which critically ill children identified by consensus criteria reflect physician diagnosis of severe sepsis, which underlies external validity for pediatric sepsis research, is not known. We sought to determine the agreement between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis across a network of international pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Methods: We conducted a point prevalence study involving 128 PICUs in 26 countries across 6 continents. Over the course of 5 study days, 6925 PICU patients <18 years of age were screened, and 706 with severe sepsis defined either by physician diagnosis or on the basis of 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference consensus criteria were enrolled. The primary endpoint was agreement of pediatric severe sepsis between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria as measured using Cohen's ?. Secondary endpoints included characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients identified using physician diagnosis versus consensus criteria. Results: Of the 706 patients, 301 (42.6 %) met both definitions. The inter-rater agreement (? ± SE) between physician diagnosis and consensus criteria was 0.57 ± 0.02. Of the 438 patients with a physician's diagnosis of severe sepsis, only 69 % (301 of 438) would have been eligible to participate in a clinical trial of pediatric severe sepsis that enrolled patients based on consensus criteria. Patients with physician-diagnosed severe sepsis who did not meet consensus criteria were younger and had lower severity of illness and lower PICU mortality than those meeting consensus criteria or both definitions. After controlling for age, severity of illness, number of comorbid conditions, and treatment in developed versus resource-limited regions, patients identified with severe sepsis by physician diagnosis alone or by consensus criteria alone did not have PICU mortality significantly different from that of patients identified by both physician diagnosis and consensus criteria. Conclusions: Physician diagnosis of pediatric severe sepsis achieved only moderate agreement with consensus criteria, with physicians diagnosing severe sepsis more broadly. Consequently, the results of a research study based on consensus criteria may have limited generalizability to nearly one-third of PICU patients diagnosed with severe sepsis

Traumatic brain injury and peripheral immune suppression: primer and prospectus

Nosocomial infections are a common occurrence in patients following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and are associated with an increased risk of mortality, longer length of hospital stay and poor neurological outcome. Systemic immune suppression arising as a direct result of injury to the central nervous system (CNS) is considered to be primarily responsible for this increased incidence of infection, a view strengthened by recent studies that have reported novel changes in the composition and function of the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system post TBI. However, our knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie TBI-induced immune suppression is equivocal at best. Here, after summarising our current understanding of the impact of TBI on peripheral immunity and discussing CNS-mediated regulation of immune function, we propose roles for a series of novel mechanisms in driving the immune suppression that is observed post TBI. These mechanisms, which have never been considered before in the context of TBI-induced immune paresis include the CNS-driven emergence into the circulation of myeloid derived suppressor cells and suppressive neutrophil subsets, and the release from injured tissue of nuclear and mitochondria-derived damage associated molecular patterns. Moreover, in an effort to further our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie TBI-induced changes in immunity, we pose throughout the review a series of questions, which if answered would address a number of key issues such as establishing whether manipulating peripheral immune function has potential as a future therapeutic strategy by which to treat and/or prevent infections in the hospitalised TBI patient