• J Thorac Dis · Feb 2018

    Clinical outcome comparison of patients with septic shock defined by the new sepsis-3 criteria and by previous criteria.

    • Seung Mok Ryoo, Gu Hyun Kang, Tae Gun Shin, Sung Yeon Hwang, Kyuseok Kim, You Hwan Jo, Yoo Seok Park, Sung-Hyuk Choi, Young Hoon Yoon, Woon Yong Kwon, Gil Joon Suh, Tae Ho Lim, Kap Su Han, Han Sung Choi, Sung Phil Chung, Won Young Kim, and Korean Shock Society (KoSS) Investigators.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
    • J Thorac Dis. 2018 Feb 1; 10 (2): 845-853.

    BackgroundWe compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the new definition of sepsis-3 septic shock and the definition previously used from 1991 until recently.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using a prospective, multi-center registry of septic shock from October 2015 to February 2017. Registry data were collected by 10 emergency departments (EDs) in tertiary hospitals that are members of the Korean Shock Society. Data on septic shock patients who met the previous septic shock definition were collected. The patients were divided into a sepsis-3 defined septic shock group, made up of those who met the new criteria for refractory hypotension with hyperlactatemia, and a group of those who met only the 1991 definition for septic shock. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf all 1,028 included patients, 574 (55.8%) met the septic shock criteria for sepsis-3, leaving 454 patients who met only the previous definition. Those who met the sepsis-3 criteria demonstrated higher comorbidity than those who met the previous definition (83.1% vs. 75.3%, P<0.01), but there was no difference in infection focus. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) (initial/maximal), the acute physiology, and the chronic health evaluation II scores were significantly higher in for those who met the sepsis-3 criteria [6.5±3.1 vs. 5.0±2.9, 9.3±3.8 vs. 6.6±3.4, and 20.0 (15.0-26.0) vs. 15.0 (10.0-20.3), respectively; P<0.01]. The 90-day mortality was significantly higher in the sepsis-3 group (32.1% vs. 23.3%; P<0.01). In-hospital and 28-day mortality were also higher in the sepsis-3 group (26.8% vs. 17.1% and 25.1% vs. 16.5%, respectively; P<0.01).ConclusionsThe new definition of septic shock successfully selected patients with greater severities and worse outcomes.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.