Evaluation of Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 Diagnostic Criteria in Patients with Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit.
Journal
Journal of healthcare engineering
ISSN: 2040-2309
Titre abrégé: J Healthc Eng
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
16
09
2021
revised:
18
10
2021
accepted:
10
11
2021
medline:
18
7
2023
pubmed:
17
7
2023
entrez:
17
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of SIRS and SOFA criteria in diagnosing sepsis among patients has been characterized by increasingly growing criticism. Indeed, the definition of sepsis has attracted significant controversy in history across medical and academic realms. The study used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) database in assessing the effectiveness of the SIRS and SOFA diagnostic criteria. It ascertained the severity and specificity of sepsis infection in ICU patients. The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) database was established by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and MIT's Computational Physiology Laboratory. The database is a voluminous single-center database containing information pertaining to 38,000 adults who were admitted to the BIDMC in the 11 years leading up to 2012. The identification of patients with sepsis was conducted using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes. The analysis of data for this study was based on the chi-square test, which is significant in comparing the specificity, mortality, and sensitivity of the data. The process of screening the MIMIC-III database resulted in the identification of 21,368 patients with infections from the hospital admissions in the database. The results also indicate a significantly higher mortality rate within 28 days of admission in sepsis-3 patients compared with sepsis-1. In this experiment, we limited the study period to 28 days to restrict the potential of mortality caused by other factors. Additionally, we evaluated the clinical factors associated with the sepsis-1 or sepsis-3 and found out similar results in the analysis for sepsis-1 and sepsis-3. The study results also portray numerous challenges in using the sepsis-3 criteria as a diagnostic tool. In particular, the ICD-10-CM diagnosis approach was limiting because it inhibited the measure of uncertainty of infection present at the beginning of the two diagnostic criteria of sepsis-1 and sepsis-3.
Sections du résumé
Background
The use of SIRS and SOFA criteria in diagnosing sepsis among patients has been characterized by increasingly growing criticism. Indeed, the definition of sepsis has attracted significant controversy in history across medical and academic realms.
Methods
The study used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) database in assessing the effectiveness of the SIRS and SOFA diagnostic criteria. It ascertained the severity and specificity of sepsis infection in ICU patients. The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) database was established by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and MIT's Computational Physiology Laboratory. The database is a voluminous single-center database containing information pertaining to 38,000 adults who were admitted to the BIDMC in the 11 years leading up to 2012. The identification of patients with sepsis was conducted using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes.
Results
The analysis of data for this study was based on the chi-square test, which is significant in comparing the specificity, mortality, and sensitivity of the data. The process of screening the MIMIC-III database resulted in the identification of 21,368 patients with infections from the hospital admissions in the database. The results also indicate a significantly higher mortality rate within 28 days of admission in sepsis-3 patients compared with sepsis-1. In this experiment, we limited the study period to 28 days to restrict the potential of mortality caused by other factors. Additionally, we evaluated the clinical factors associated with the sepsis-1 or sepsis-3 and found out similar results in the analysis for sepsis-1 and sepsis-3.
Conclusions
The study results also portray numerous challenges in using the sepsis-3 criteria as a diagnostic tool. In particular, the ICD-10-CM diagnosis approach was limiting because it inhibited the measure of uncertainty of infection present at the beginning of the two diagnostic criteria of sepsis-1 and sepsis-3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37457495
doi: 10.1155/2023/3794886
pmc: PMC10348846
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3794886Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Qianying Song and Weiyu Fei.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Références
Intern Med. 2012;51(8):871-6
pubmed: 22504241
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Dec;42(12):2027-2029
pubmed: 27815587
Intensive Care Med. 2008 Mar;34(3):496-504
pubmed: 18060541
Lancet. 2013 Mar 2;381(9868):774-5
pubmed: 23472921
Crit Care Med. 2002 Mar;30(3):706-8
pubmed: 11990942
Intensive Care Med. 2012 May;38(5):811-9
pubmed: 22476449
JAMA. 2017 Jan 17;317(3):301-308
pubmed: 28114554
J Thorac Dis. 2017 Apr;9(4):943-945
pubmed: 28523143
Lancet Respir Med. 2014 May;2(5):380-6
pubmed: 24740011
Sci Data. 2016 May 24;3:160035
pubmed: 27219127
Crit Care Med. 2004 Nov;32(11 Suppl):S466-94
pubmed: 15542957
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 15;192(8):958-64
pubmed: 26158402
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Feb;23(2):104-109
pubmed: 27856268
Inflamm Regen. 2016 Nov 15;36:24
pubmed: 29259697
Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul;29(7):1303-10
pubmed: 11445675
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Saudi Med J. 2012 Jul;33(7):756-62
pubmed: 22821310
Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Nov;35(11):1730-1733
pubmed: 28712645
Crit Care Med. 2020 Mar;48(3):e209-e218
pubmed: 31804299
J Evol Biol. 2011 Aug;24(8):1836-41
pubmed: 21605215
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 23;372(17):1629-38
pubmed: 25776936
Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):34-38
pubmed: 29037526
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):762-74
pubmed: 26903335
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Feb 1;193(3):259-72
pubmed: 26414292
Crit Care Med. 2019 Mar;47(3):307-314
pubmed: 30768498
Crit Care. 2016 Jul 17;20(1):210
pubmed: 27423462