[Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Germany. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis].
Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland. Ergebnisse eines systematischen Reviews mit Metaanalyse.
Infection
International comparison
Mortality
Sepsis
Systematic analysis
Journal
Der Anaesthesist
ISSN: 1432-055X
Titre abrégé: Anaesthesist
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0370525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
10
09
2020
accepted:
13
01
2021
revised:
05
12
2020
pubmed:
10
2
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
entrez:
9
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model. Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009. Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used. HINTERGRUND: Verschiedene Autoren diskutieren, ob fehlende Qualitätsinitiativen und Behandlungsstandards in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich zu höherer Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock führen könnten. Dem gegenüber steht eine international anerkannte intensivmedizinische Versorgung in Deutschland, z. B. während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland zu ermitteln und mit anderen Industrienationen zu vergleichen. In eine systematischen Literaturrecherche wurden alle zwischen 2009 und 2020 veröffentlichten Interventions- und Beobachtungsstudien aus den Datenbanken PubMed und Cochrane Library eingeschlossen. Die 30- und 90-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock wurde in einer Metaanalyse mittels „Random-effects“-Modells gepoolt. Insgesamt wurden 134 Studien in die Meta-Analyse eingeschlossen. Die 30-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis betrug in Deutschland 26,50 % (95 %-KI: 19,86–33,15 %), in Europa (ohne Deutschland) 23,85 % (95%-KI: 20,49–27,21 %) und in Nordamerika 19,58 % (95%-KI: 14,03–25,14 %). Die 30-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei septischem Schock betrug 30,48 % (95 %-KI: 29,30–31,67 %), 34,57 % (95 %-KI: 33,51–35,64 %) bzw. 33,69 % (95 %-KI: 31,51–35,86 %). Die 90-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei septischem Schock betrug 38,78 % (95 %-KI: 32,70–44,86 %), 41,90 % (95 %-KI: 38,88–44,91 %) beziehungsweise 34,41 % (95 %-KI: 25,66–43,16 %). Es ergaben sich somit keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass die Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis/septischem Schock im internationalen Vergleich in Deutschland erhöht ist.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
UNASSIGNED
HINTERGRUND: Verschiedene Autoren diskutieren, ob fehlende Qualitätsinitiativen und Behandlungsstandards in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich zu höherer Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock führen könnten. Dem gegenüber steht eine international anerkannte intensivmedizinische Versorgung in Deutschland, z. B. während der COVID-19-Pandemie.
ZIEL DER ARBEIT
UNASSIGNED
Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland zu ermitteln und mit anderen Industrienationen zu vergleichen.
MATERIAL UND METHODEN
METHODS
In eine systematischen Literaturrecherche wurden alle zwischen 2009 und 2020 veröffentlichten Interventions- und Beobachtungsstudien aus den Datenbanken PubMed und Cochrane Library eingeschlossen. Die 30- und 90-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock wurde in einer Metaanalyse mittels „Random-effects“-Modells gepoolt.
ERGEBNISSE
UNASSIGNED
Insgesamt wurden 134 Studien in die Meta-Analyse eingeschlossen. Die 30-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis betrug in Deutschland 26,50 % (95 %-KI: 19,86–33,15 %), in Europa (ohne Deutschland) 23,85 % (95%-KI: 20,49–27,21 %) und in Nordamerika 19,58 % (95%-KI: 14,03–25,14 %). Die 30-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei septischem Schock betrug 30,48 % (95 %-KI: 29,30–31,67 %), 34,57 % (95 %-KI: 33,51–35,64 %) bzw. 33,69 % (95 %-KI: 31,51–35,86 %). Die 90-Tages-Sterblichkeit bei septischem Schock betrug 38,78 % (95 %-KI: 32,70–44,86 %), 41,90 % (95 %-KI: 38,88–44,91 %) beziehungsweise 34,41 % (95 %-KI: 25,66–43,16 %).
DISKUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Es ergaben sich somit keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass die Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis/septischem Schock im internationalen Vergleich in Deutschland erhöht ist.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
HINTERGRUND: Verschiedene Autoren diskutieren, ob fehlende Qualitätsinitiativen und Behandlungsstandards in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich zu höherer Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock führen könnten. Dem gegenüber steht eine international anerkannte intensivmedizinische Versorgung in Deutschland, z. B. während der COVID-19-Pandemie.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33559687
doi: 10.1007/s00101-021-00917-8
pii: 10.1007/s00101-021-00917-8
pmc: PMC7871311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
673-680Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Angus DC, van der Poll T (2013) Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 369:840–851
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208623
Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C et al (2018) Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 378:809–818. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705716
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716
pubmed: 29490185
Bauer M, Gerlach H, Vogelmann T et al (2020) Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019—results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 24:239
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02950-2
Behnes M, Bertsch T, Lepiorz D et al (2014) Diagnostic and prognostic utility of soluble CD 14 subtype (presepsin) for severe sepsis and septic shock during the first week of intensive care treatment. Crit Care 18:507
doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0507-z
Bennhold K (2020) A German exception? Why the country’s Coronavirus death rate is low. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-rate.html . Zugegriffen: 23. Juni 2020
Boerma EC, Koopmans M, Konijn A et al (2010) Effects of nitroglycerin on sublingual microcirculatory blood flow in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock after a strict resuscitation protocol: a double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial. Crit Care Med 38:93–100
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b02fc1
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB et al (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest 101:1644–1655
doi: 10.1378/chest.101.6.1644
Diederich A, Winkelhage J, Wirsik N (2011) Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view. Plos One 6:e23930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023930
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023930
pubmed: 21904600
pmcid: 3164130
Engel C, Brunkhorst FM, Bone H‑G et al (2007) Epidemiology of sepsis in germany: results from a national prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 33:606–618
doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0517-7
Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mikolajetz A, Schwarzkopf D et al (2018) Challenges in assessing the burden of sepsis and understanding the inequalities of sepsis outcomes between national health systems: secular trends in sepsis and infection incidence and mortality in germany. Intensive Care Med 44:1826–1835
doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5377-4
Fleischmann C, Hartmann M, Hartog C et al (2015) Epidemiology of sepsis in germany: incidence, mortality and associated costs of care 2007–2013. Intensive Care Med Exp 3:A50
doi: 10.1186/2197-425X-3-S1-A50
Fleischmann C, Thomas-Rueddel DO, Hartmann M et al (2016) Hospital incidence and mortality rates of sepsis: an analysis of hospital episode (drg) statistics in germany from 2007 to 2013. Dtsch Arztebl Int 113:159–166
pubmed: 27010950
pmcid: 4814768
Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG (2013) Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the united states. Crit Care Med 41:1167–1174
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8
Häuser W, Schubert T, Vogelmann T et al (2020) All-cause mortality in patients with long-term opioid therapy compared with non-opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a database study. BMC Med 18:162
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01644-4
Hibbeler B (2013) Stationäre Behandlung: Der alte Patient wird zum Normalfall. Dtsch Aerztebl 110:1036–1037
Karagiannidis C, Mostert C, Hentschker C et al (2020) Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study. Lancet Respir Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30316-7
doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30316-7
pubmed: 32835653
pmcid: 7442432
Kaukonen K‑M, Bailey M, Suzuki S et al (2014) Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2012. JAMA 311:1308–1316
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.2637
Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS et al (2012) Outcomes of the surviving sepsis campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 12:919–924
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70239-6
OECD (2020) Beyond containment: health systems responses to COVID-19 in the OECD. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=119_119689-ud5comtf84&title=Beyond_Containment:Health_systems_responses_to_COVID-19_in_the_OECD 2020. Zugegriffen: 5. Juni 2020
(2017) Sepsissterblichkeit in Deutschland höher als in anderen Ländern. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/83527/Sepsissterblichkeit-in-Deutschland-hoeher-als-in-anderen-Laendern . Zugegriffen: 17. Juni 2020
Ou L, Chen J, Hillman K et al (2017) The impact of post-operative sepsis on mortality after hospital discharge among elective surgical patients: a population-based cohort study. Crit Care 21:34
doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1596-7
Pavon A, Binquet C, Kara F et al (2013) Profile of the risk of death after septic shock in the present era. Crit Care Med 41:2600–2609
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a6e89
Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L et al (2017) Incidence and trends of sepsis in us hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA 318:1241–1249
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13836
SepNet Critical Care Trials Group (2016) Incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock in german intensive care units: the prospective, multicentre INSEP study. Intensive Care Med 42:1980–1989
doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4504-3
Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ et al (2016) Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). J Am Med Assoc 315:762–774
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0288
Shankar-Hari M, Harrison DA, Rubenfeld GD, Rowan K (2017) Epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock in critical care units: comparison between sepsis‑2 and sepsis‑3 populations using a national critical care database. Br J Anaesth 119:626–636
doi: 10.1093/bja/aex234
Simon A (2011) Alte Patienten in der Intensivmedizin. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfallmed 106:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-011-0022-9
doi: 10.1007/s00063-011-0022-9
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA 315:801–810
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287
Sterne J, Higgins J, Elbers R et al (2016) Risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I): detailed guidance, updated 12 October 2016. http://www.riskofbias.info . Zugegriffen: 7. Mai 2020
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.14898
Sudharsanan N, Didzun O, Bärnighausen T, Geldsetzer P (2020) The contribution of the age distribution of cases to COVID-19 case fatality across countries. Ann Intern Med 173:714–720. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2973
doi: 10.7326/M20-2973
pubmed: 32698605
Tay MZ, Poh CM, Rénia L et al (2020) The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention. Nat Rev Immunol 20:363–374
doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0311-8
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (2012) Access All Ages: Assessing the impact of ages on access to surgical treatment. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/rcs-publications/docs/access-all-ages/ . Zugegriffen: 26. Nov. 2020
Vincent JL, Jones G, David S et al (2019) Frequency and mortality of septic shock in europe and north america: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 23:1–11
doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2293-5