Towards an ecological definition of sepsis: a viewpoint

In critically ill patients with sepsis, there is a grave lack of effective treatment options to address the illness-defining inappropriate host response. Currently, treatment is limited to source control and supportive care, albeit with imminent approval of immune modulating drugs for COVID-19-associated lung failure the potential of host-directed strategies appears on the horizon. We suggest expanding the concept of sepsis by incorporating infectious stress within the general stress response of the cell to define sepsis as an illness state characterized by allostatic overload and failing adaptive responses along with biotic (pathogen) and abiotic (e.g., malnutrition) environmental stress factors. This would allow conceptualizing the failing organismic responses to pathogens in sepsis with an ancient response pattern depending on the energy state of cells and organs towards other environmental stressors in general. Hence, the present review aims to decipher the heuristic value of a biological definition of sepsis as a failing stress response. These considerations may motivate a better understanding of the processes underlying “host defense failure” on the organismic, organ, cell and molecular levels

Adverse effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment and surgical source control in adults with sepsis: results of a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Timely antimicrobial treatment and source control are strongly recommended by sepsis guidelines, however, their impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial conducted from July 2011 to May 2015 including forty German hospitals. All adult patients with sepsis treated in the participating ICUs were included. Primary exposures were timing of antimicrobial therapy and delay of surgical source control during the first 48 h after sepsis onset. Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Mixed models were used to investigate the effects of timing while adjusting for confounders. The linearity of the effect was investigated by fractional polynomials and by categorizing of timing. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 4792 patients receiving antimicrobial treatment and 1595 patients undergoing surgical source control. Fractional polynomial analysis identified a linear effect of timing of antimicrobials on 28-day mortality, which increased by 0.42% per hour delay (OR with 95% CI 1.019 [1.01, 1.028], p ≤ 0.001). This effect was significant in patients with and without shock (OR = 1.018 [1.008, 1.029] and 1.026 [1.01, 1.043], respectively). Using a categorized timing variable, there were no significant differences comparing treatment within 1 h versus 1–3 h, or 1 h versus 3–6 h. Delays of more than 6 h significantly increased mortality (OR = 1.41 [1.17, 1.69]). Delay in antimicrobials also increased risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock (OR per hour: 1.051 [1.022, 1.081], p ≤ 0.001). Time to surgical source control was significantly associated with decreased odds of successful source control (OR = 0.982 [0.971, 0.994], p = 0.003) and increased odds of death (OR = 1.011 [1.001, 1.021]; p = 0.03) in unadjusted analysis, but not when adjusted for confounders (OR = 0.991 [0.978, 1.005] and OR = 1.008 [0.997, 1.02], respectively). Only, among patients with septic shock delay of source control was significantly related to risk-of death (adjusted OR = 1.013 [1.001, 1.026], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that management of sepsis is time critical both for antimicrobial therapy and source control. Also patients, who are not yet in septic shock, profit from early anti-infective treatment since it can prevent further deterioration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134). Registered 23 August 2010, NCT01187134 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03901-9

A multifaceted educational intervention improved anti-infectious measures but had no effect on mortality in patients with severe sepsis

Sepsis is a major reason for preventable hospital deaths. A cluster-randomized controlled trial on an educational intervention did not show improvements of sepsis management or outcome. We now aimed to test an improved implementation strategy in a second intervention phase in which new intervention hospitals (former controls) received a multifaceted educational intervention, while controls (former intervention hospitals) only received feedback of quality indicators. Changes in outcomes from the first to the second intervention phase were compared between groups using hierarchical generalized linear models controlling for possible confounders. During the two phases, 19 control hospitals included 4050 patients with sepsis and 21 intervention hospitals included 2526 patients. 28-day mortality did not show significant changes between study phases in both groups. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within one hour increased in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals. Taking at least two sets of blood cultures increased significantly in both groups. During phase 2, intervention hospitals showed higher proportion of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy and de-escalation within 5 days. A survey among involved clinicians indicated lacking resources for quality improvement. Therefore, quality improvement programs should include all elements of sepsis guidelines and provide hospitals with sufficient resources for quality improvement. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered 23 August 2010, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01187134

Fever and hypothermia represent two populations of sepsis patients and are associated with outside temperature

Abstract Background Fever and hypothermia have been observed in septic patients. Their influence on prognosis is subject to ongoing debates. Methods We did a secondary analysis of a large clinical dataset from a quality improvement trial. A binary logistic regression model was calculated to assess the association of the thermal response with outcome and a multinomial regression model to assess factors associated with fever or hypothermia. Results With 6542 analyzable cases we observed a bimodal temperature response characterized by fever or hypothermia, normothermia was rare. Hypothermia and high fever were both associated with higher lactate values. Hypothermia was associated with higher mortality, but this association was reduced after adjustment for other risk factors. Age, community-acquired sepsis, lower BMI and lower outside temperatures were associated with hypothermia while bacteremia and higher procalcitonin values were associated with high fever. Conclusions Septic patients show either a hypothermic or a fever response. Whether hypothermia is a maladaptive response, as indicated by the higher mortality in hypothermic patients, or an adaptive response in patients with limited metabolic reserves under colder environmental conditions, remains an open question. Trial registration The original trial whose dataset was analyzed was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134) on August 23, 2010, the first patient was included on July 1, 2011

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

A risk-model for hospital mortality among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock based on German national administrative claims data

<div><p>Background</p><p>Sepsis is a major cause of preventable deaths in hospitals. Feasible and valid methods for comparing quality of sepsis care between hospitals are needed. The aim of this study was to develop a risk-adjustment model suitable for comparing sepsis-related mortality between German hospitals.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We developed a risk-model using national German claims data. Since these data are available with a time-lag of 1.5 years only, the stability of the model across time was investigated. The model was derived from inpatient cases with severe sepsis or septic shock treated in 2013 using logistic regression with backward selection and generalized estimating equations to correct for clustering. It was validated among cases treated in 2015. Finally, the model development was repeated in 2015. To investigate secular changes, the risk-adjusted trajectory of mortality across the years 2010–2015 was analyzed.</p><p>Results</p><p>The 2013 deviation sample consisted of 113,750 cases; the 2015 validation sample consisted of 134,851 cases. The model developed in 2013 showed good validity regarding discrimination (<i>AUC</i> = 0.74), calibration (observed mortality in 1^st and 10^th risk-decile: 11%-78%), and fit (<i>R</i>^<i>2</i> = 0.16). Validity remained stable when the model was applied to 2015 (AUC = 0.74, 1^st and 10^th risk-decile: 10%-77%, <i>R</i>^<i>2</i> = 0.17). There was no indication of overfitting of the model. The final model developed in year 2015 contained 40 risk-factors. Between 2010 and 2015 hospital mortality in sepsis decreased from 48% to 42%. Adjusted for risk-factors the trajectory of decrease was still significant.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The risk-model shows good predictive validity and stability across time. The model is suitable to be used as an external algorithm for comparing risk-adjusted sepsis mortality among German hospitals or regions based on administrative claims data, but secular changes need to be taken into account when interpreting risk-adjusted mortality.</p></div

Calibration of the model derived in 2013 for predicting hospital mortality in cases with severe sepsis or septic shock treated in 2015.

<p>The gap between predicted and observed mortality (M±SD = 2.7%±0.7%) results from a secular trend with decreasing mortality (compare <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0194371#pone.0194371.g002" target="_blank">Fig 2</a>).</p

Sample of cases with severe sepsis or septic shock in German national diagnostic related groups data.

<p>Sample of cases with severe sepsis or septic shock in German national diagnostic related groups data.</p

The German Quality Network Sepsis: Evaluation of a Quality Collaborative on Decreasing Sepsis-Related Mortality in a Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Background Sepsis is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in hospitals. This study presents the evaluation of a quality collaborative, which aimed to decrease sepsis-related hospital mortality. Methods The German Quality Network Sepsis (GQNS) offers quality reporting based on claims data, peer reviews, and support for establishing continuous quality management and staff education. This study evaluates the effects of participating in the GQNS during the intervention period (April 2016–June 2018) in comparison to a retrospective baseline (January 2014–March 2016). The primary outcome was all-cause risk-adjusted hospital mortality among cases with sepsis. Sepsis was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in claims data. A controlled time series analysis was conducted to analyze changes from the baseline to the intervention period comparing GQNS hospitals with the population of all German hospitals assessed via the national diagnosis-related groups (DRGs)-statistics. Tests were conducted using piecewise hierarchical models. Implementation processes and barriers were assessed by surveys of local leaders of quality improvement teams. Results Seventy-four hospitals participated, of which 17 were university hospitals and 18 were tertiary care facilities. Observed mortality was 43.5% during baseline period and 42.7% during intervention period. Interrupted time-series analyses did not show effects on course or level of risk-adjusted mortality of cases with sepsis compared to the national DRG-statistics after the beginning of the intervention period (p = 0.632 and p = 0.512, respectively). There was no significant mortality decrease in the subgroups of patients with septic shock or ventilation >24 h or predefined subgroups of hospitals. A standardized survey among 49 local quality improvement leaders in autumn of 2018 revealed that most hospitals did not succeed in implementing a continuous quality management program or relevant measures to improve early recognition and treatment of sepsis. Barriers perceived most commonly were lack of time (77.6%), staff shortage (59.2%), and lack of participation of relevant departments (38.8%). Conclusion As long as hospital-wide sepsis quality improvement efforts will not become a high priority for the hospital leadership by assuring adequate resources and involvement of all pertinent stakeholders, voluntary initiatives to improve the quality of sepsis care will remain prone to failure