Sepsis Mortality Prediction Based on Predisposition, Infection and Response

OBJECTIVE: To empirically test, based on a large multicenter, multinational database, whether a modified PIRO (predisposition, insult, response, and organ dysfunction) concept could be applied to predict mortality in patients with infection and sepsis. DESIGN: Substudy of a multicenter multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: A total of 2,628 patients with signs of infection or sepsis who stayed in the ICU for >48 h. Three boxes of variables were defined, according to the PIRO concept. Box 1 (Predisposition) contained information about the patient's condition before ICU admission. Box 2 (Injury) contained information about the infection at ICU admission. Box 3 (Response) was defined as the response to the infection, expressed as a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score after 48 h. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Most of the infections were community acquired (59.6%); 32.5% were hospital acquired. The median age of the patients was 65 (50-75) years, and 41.1% were female. About 22% (n=576) of the patients presented with infection only, 36.3% (n=953) with signs of sepsis, 23.6% (n=619) with severe sepsis, and 18.3% (n=480) with septic shock. Hospital mortality was 40.6% overall, greater in those with septic shock (52.5%) than in those with infection (34.7%). Several factors related to predisposition, infection and response were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The proposed three-level system, by using objectively defined criteria for risk of mortality in sepsis, could be used by physicians to stratify patients at ICU admission or shortly thereafter, contributing to a better selection of management according to the risk of death

Modeling in-Hospital Patient Survival During the First 28 Days After Intensive Care Unit Admission: a Prognostic Model for Clinical Trials in General Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop a model for estimating patient 28-day in-hospital mortality using 2 different statistical approaches. DESIGN: The study was designed to develop an outcome prediction model for 28-day in-hospital mortality using (a) logistic regression with random effects and (b) a multilevel Cox proportional hazards model. SETTING: The study involved 305 intensive care units (ICUs) from the basic Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 cohort. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 17138) were from the SAPS 3 database with follow-up data pertaining to the first 28 days in hospital after ICU admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The database was divided randomly into 5 roughly equal-sized parts (at the ICU level). It was thus possible to run the model-building procedure 5 times, each time taking four fifths of the sample as a development set and the remaining fifth as the validation set. At 28 days after ICU admission, 19.98% of the patients were still in the hospital. Because of the different sampling space and outcome variables, both models presented a better fit in this sample than did the SAPS 3 admission score calibrated to vital status at hospital discharge, both on the general population and in major subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical methods can be used to model the 28-day in-hospital mortality better than the SAPS 3 admission model. However, because the logistic regression approach is specifically designed to forecast 28-day mortality, and given the high uncertainty associated with the assumption of the proportionality of risks in the Cox model, the logistic regression approach proved to be superior

Sepsis Mortality Prediction Based on Predisposition, Infection and Response

OBJECTIVE: To empirically test, based on a large multicenter, multinational database, whether a modified PIRO (predisposition, insult, response, and organ dysfunction) concept could be applied to predict mortality in patients with infection and sepsis. DESIGN: Substudy of a multicenter multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: A total of 2,628 patients with signs of infection or sepsis who stayed in the ICU for >48 h. Three boxes of variables were defined, according to the PIRO concept. Box 1 (Predisposition) contained information about the patient's condition before ICU admission. Box 2 (Injury) contained information about the infection at ICU admission. Box 3 (Response) was defined as the response to the infection, expressed as a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score after 48 h. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Most of the infections were community acquired (59.6%); 32.5% were hospital acquired. The median age of the patients was 65 (50-75) years, and 41.1% were female. About 22% (n=576) of the patients presented with infection only, 36.3% (n=953) with signs of sepsis, 23.6% (n=619) with severe sepsis, and 18.3% (n=480) with septic shock. Hospital mortality was 40.6% overall, greater in those with septic shock (52.5%) than in those with infection (34.7%). Several factors related to predisposition, infection and response were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The proposed three-level system, by using objectively defined criteria for risk of mortality in sepsis, could be used by physicians to stratify patients at ICU admission or shortly thereafter, contributing to a better selection of management according to the risk of death

Modeling in-Hospital Patient Survival During the First 28 Days After Intensive Care Unit Admission: a Prognostic Model for Clinical Trials in General Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop a model for estimating patient 28-day in-hospital mortality using 2 different statistical approaches. DESIGN: The study was designed to develop an outcome prediction model for 28-day in-hospital mortality using (a) logistic regression with random effects and (b) a multilevel Cox proportional hazards model. SETTING: The study involved 305 intensive care units (ICUs) from the basic Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 cohort. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 17138) were from the SAPS 3 database with follow-up data pertaining to the first 28 days in hospital after ICU admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The database was divided randomly into 5 roughly equal-sized parts (at the ICU level). It was thus possible to run the model-building procedure 5 times, each time taking four fifths of the sample as a development set and the remaining fifth as the validation set. At 28 days after ICU admission, 19.98% of the patients were still in the hospital. Because of the different sampling space and outcome variables, both models presented a better fit in this sample than did the SAPS 3 admission score calibrated to vital status at hospital discharge, both on the general population and in major subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical methods can be used to model the 28-day in-hospital mortality better than the SAPS 3 admission model. However, because the logistic regression approach is specifically designed to forecast 28-day mortality, and given the high uncertainty associated with the assumption of the proportionality of risks in the Cox model, the logistic regression approach proved to be superior

Epidemiology of mechanical ventilation: analysis of the SAPS 3 database

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current practice of mechanical ventilation in the ICU and the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving it. DESIGN: Pre-planned sub-study of a multicenter, multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: 13,322 patients admitted to 299 intensive care units (ICUs) from 35 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: no mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive MV (NIV), and invasive MV. More than half of the patients (53% [CI: 52.2-53.9%]) were mechanically ventilated at ICU admission. FIO2, VT and PEEP used during invasive MV were on average 50% (40-80%), 8 mL/kg actual body weight (6.9-9.4 mL/kg) and 5 cmH2O (3-6 cmH2O), respectively. Several invMV patients (17.3% (CI:16.4-18.3%)) were ventilated with zero PEEP (ZEEP). These patients exhibited a significantly increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality, compared with patients ventilated with higher PEEP (O/E ratio 1.12 [1.05-1.18]). NIV was used in 4.2% (CI: 3.8-4.5%) of all patients and was associated with an improved risk-adjusted outcome (OR 0.79, [0.69-0.90]). CONCLUSION: Ventilation mode and parameter settings for MV varied significantly across ICUs. Our results provide evidence that some ventilatory modes and settings could still be used against current evidence and recommendations. This includes ventilation with tidal volumes >8mL/kg body weight in patients with a low PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ZEEP in invMV patients. Invasive mechanical ventilation with ZEEP was associated with a worse outcome, even after controlling for severity of disease. Since our study did not document indications for MV, the association between MV settings and outcome must be viewed with caution