Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria
Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing de...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-09, Vol.15 (9), p.e0238548-e0238548 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0238548 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | e0238548 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Centner, Franz-Simon Schoettler, Jochen J Fairley, Anna-Meagan Lindner, Holger A Schneider-Lindner, Verena Weiss, Christel Thiel, Manfred Hagmann, Michael |
| description | Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis. Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria. Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 in 99% and SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were [greater than or equal to]2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02). SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS[greater than or equal to]2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0238548 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2440886547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A634831735</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4d0c84f07dbc41beb9f872a6e1e2fd50</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A634831735</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-66075b9e4de8c4a11a66b7855ed31f6f2374568741eb11ef0a2809d4d75417de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk92K1DAUx4so7rr6BoIBQfRixqZNk8zNwrL4MbCw4NdtSJuTmSxpUpN0de98CN_Ne5_EdLYrO7IXUmhzkt_5n4-eFMVTXC5xzfDrCz8GJ-1y8A6WZVXzhvB7xSFe1dWCVmV9_9b6oHgU40VZNjWn9GFxUFd8xTHFh8WvdT_ILiGvkTJaQwCXUOddBBfHiBRo40wy3qEumATBSJTXEYZo8qmRG-enlXFIZretDzupiTWdtPYKGWvRIJPJuvH3j59rF81mmyLSwffZx8E31Mu0hfyaPNAQfCtbY03MNpJDtmW3RcmjPotLa9LVopURFLrMhpK73HLIOaWbLB8XD7S0EZ7M36Pi89s3n07fL87O361PT84WHaWrtKC0ZE27AqKAd0RiLCltGW8aUDXWVFc1Iw3ljGBoMQZdyoqXK0UUawhmCuqj4tm17mB9FPM_iaIipOScNoRlYn1NKC8vxBBML8OV8NKI3YYPGyFDrtWCIKrsONElU21HcAvtSnNWSQoYKq2aMmsdz9HGtgfV5aYGafdE90-c2YqNvxSMMM6aJgu8nAWC_zpCTKI3sQNrpQM_7vLGFa8oxxl9_g96d3UztZG5AOO0z3G7SVSc0JrwGrN6Cru8g8qPgt7kactTlvf3HF7tOWQmwfe0kWOMYv3xw_-z51_22Re32C1Im7bR23GaorgPkmuwCz7GAPpvk3Eppvt30w0x3T8x37_6DytrKFM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2440886547</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Centner, Franz-Simon ; Schoettler, Jochen J ; Fairley, Anna-Meagan ; Lindner, Holger A ; Schneider-Lindner, Verena ; Weiss, Christel ; Thiel, Manfred ; Hagmann, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Centner, Franz-Simon ; Schoettler, Jochen J ; Fairley, Anna-Meagan ; Lindner, Holger A ; Schneider-Lindner, Verena ; Weiss, Christel ; Thiel, Manfred ; Hagmann, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis. Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria. Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 in 99% and SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were [greater than or equal to]2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02). SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS[greater than or equal to]2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238548</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32898161</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Anesthesiology ; Antibiotics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Clinical deterioration ; Correlation ; Criteria ; Critically ill persons ; Diagnosis ; Evaluation ; Funding ; Health risks ; Hospitals ; Infections ; Intensive care ; Mathematical analysis ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Mortality ; Patients ; Sepsis ; Statistical analysis ; Subgroups ; Validation studies ; Validity</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-09, Vol.15 (9), p.e0238548-e0238548</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Centner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Centner et al 2020 Centner et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-66075b9e4de8c4a11a66b7855ed31f6f2374568741eb11ef0a2809d4d75417de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-66075b9e4de8c4a11a66b7855ed31f6f2374568741eb11ef0a2809d4d75417de3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7455-1361</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7478755/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7478755/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Centner, Franz-Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoettler, Jochen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fairley, Anna-Meagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindner, Holger A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider-Lindner, Verena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Christel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thiel, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hagmann, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis. Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria. Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 in 99% and SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were [greater than or equal to]2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02). SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS[greater than or equal to]2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria.</description><subject>Anesthesiology</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical deterioration</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Critically ill persons</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Sepsis</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk92K1DAUx4so7rr6BoIBQfRixqZNk8zNwrL4MbCw4NdtSJuTmSxpUpN0de98CN_Ne5_EdLYrO7IXUmhzkt_5n4-eFMVTXC5xzfDrCz8GJ-1y8A6WZVXzhvB7xSFe1dWCVmV9_9b6oHgU40VZNjWn9GFxUFd8xTHFh8WvdT_ILiGvkTJaQwCXUOddBBfHiBRo40wy3qEumATBSJTXEYZo8qmRG-enlXFIZretDzupiTWdtPYKGWvRIJPJuvH3j59rF81mmyLSwffZx8E31Mu0hfyaPNAQfCtbY03MNpJDtmW3RcmjPotLa9LVopURFLrMhpK73HLIOaWbLB8XD7S0EZ7M36Pi89s3n07fL87O361PT84WHaWrtKC0ZE27AqKAd0RiLCltGW8aUDXWVFc1Iw3ljGBoMQZdyoqXK0UUawhmCuqj4tm17mB9FPM_iaIipOScNoRlYn1NKC8vxBBML8OV8NKI3YYPGyFDrtWCIKrsONElU21HcAvtSnNWSQoYKq2aMmsdz9HGtgfV5aYGafdE90-c2YqNvxSMMM6aJgu8nAWC_zpCTKI3sQNrpQM_7vLGFa8oxxl9_g96d3UztZG5AOO0z3G7SVSc0JrwGrN6Cru8g8qPgt7kactTlvf3HF7tOWQmwfe0kWOMYv3xw_-z51_22Re32C1Im7bR23GaorgPkmuwCz7GAPpvk3Eppvt30w0x3T8x37_6DytrKFM</recordid><startdate>20200908</startdate><enddate>20200908</enddate><creator>Centner, Franz-Simon</creator><creator>Schoettler, Jochen J</creator><creator>Fairley, Anna-Meagan</creator><creator>Lindner, Holger A</creator><creator>Schneider-Lindner, Verena</creator><creator>Weiss, Christel</creator><creator>Thiel, Manfred</creator><creator>Hagmann, Michael</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7455-1361</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200908</creationdate><title>Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria</title><author>Centner, Franz-Simon ; Schoettler, Jochen J ; Fairley, Anna-Meagan ; Lindner, Holger A ; Schneider-Lindner, Verena ; Weiss, Christel ; Thiel, Manfred ; Hagmann, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-66075b9e4de8c4a11a66b7855ed31f6f2374568741eb11ef0a2809d4d75417de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anesthesiology</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical deterioration</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Critically ill persons</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Sepsis</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Centner, Franz-Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoettler, Jochen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fairley, Anna-Meagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindner, Holger A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider-Lindner, Verena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, Christel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thiel, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hagmann, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Centner, Franz-Simon</au><au>Schoettler, Jochen J</au><au>Fairley, Anna-Meagan</au><au>Lindner, Holger A</au><au>Schneider-Lindner, Verena</au><au>Weiss, Christel</au><au>Thiel, Manfred</au><au>Hagmann, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2020-09-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e0238548</spage><epage>e0238548</epage><pages>e0238548-e0238548</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis. Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA[greater than or equal to]2/SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria. Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 in 99% and SOFA_change[greater than or equal to]2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were [greater than or equal to]2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02). SOFA[greater than or equal to]2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS[greater than or equal to]2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS[greater than or equal to]2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32898161</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0238548</doi><tpages>e0238548</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7455-1361</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2020-09, Vol.15 (9), p.e0238548-e0238548 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2440886547 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Anesthesiology Antibiotics Biology and Life Sciences Care and treatment Clinical deterioration Correlation Criteria Critically ill persons Diagnosis Evaluation Funding Health risks Hospitals Infections Intensive care Mathematical analysis Medical diagnosis Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Mortality Patients Sepsis Statistical analysis Subgroups Validation studies Validity |
| title | Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients—Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A14%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20different%20consensus%20definition%20criteria%20on%20sepsis%20diagnosis%20in%20a%20cohort%20of%20critically%20ill%20patients%E2%80%94Insights%20from%20a%20new%20mathematical%20probabilistic%20approach%20to%20mortality-based%20validation%20of%20sepsis%20criteria&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Centner,%20Franz-Simon&rft.date=2020-09-08&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e0238548&rft.epage=e0238548&rft.pages=e0238548-e0238548&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0238548&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA634831735%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2440886547&rft_id=info:pmid/32898161&rft_galeid=A634831735&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_4d0c84f07dbc41beb9f872a6e1e2fd50&rfr_iscdi=true |