Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

ZHANG Lei GAI Xiao Yan LI Xin LIANG Ying WANG Meng ZHAO Fei Fan ZHOU Qing Tao SUN Yong Chang

ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LI Xin, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, ZHAO Fei Fan, ZHOU Qing Tao, SUN Yong Chang. Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(12): 1152-1161. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150
Citation: ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LI Xin, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, ZHAO Fei Fan, ZHOU Qing Tao, SUN Yong Chang. Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(12): 1152-1161. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150

doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150

Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Funds: This work was funded by the Clinical Cohort Construction Program of Peking University Third Hospital [No. BYSYDL2021019] and the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 82272197].
More Information
    Author Bio:

    ZHANG Lei, male, born in 1989, MD, majoring in critical care medicine

    GAI Xiao Yan, female, born in 1981, PhD, majoring in respiratory and critical care medicine

    Corresponding author: ZHOU Qing Tao, E-mail: qtzhou75@163.comSUN Yong Chang, E-mail: suny@bjmu.edu.cn
  • ZHOU Qing Tao and SUN Yong Chang designed and coordinated the study. ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, and ZHAO Fei Fan were responsible for patient screening, enrollment, and follow-up. ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, and LI Xin analyzed the data. ZHOU Qing Tao and ZHANG Lei drafted the manuscript. SUN Yong Chang critically revised the manuscript. All authors had full access to all data in the study and have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
  • The authors have no competing interests to declare.
  • &These authors contributed equally to this work.
    • 关键词:
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  
    ZHOU Qing Tao and SUN Yong Chang designed and coordinated the study. ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, and ZHAO Fei Fan were responsible for patient screening, enrollment, and follow-up. ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, and LI Xin analyzed the data. ZHOU Qing Tao and ZHANG Lei drafted the manuscript. SUN Yong Chang critically revised the manuscript. All authors had full access to all data in the study and have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
    The authors have no competing interests to declare.
    &These authors contributed equally to this work.
    注释:
    1) AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) COMPETING INTERESTS:
  • Figure  1.  Flow diagram illustrates the study design and patient progression.

    Figure  2.  Kaplan-Meier survival plot for 1-year survival rates of 303 patients, which included those in sepsis, pre-shock state, or septic shock.

    Figure  3.  Evolution of the condition in patients with a pre-shock state of sepsis

    of the 93 patients with a pre-shock state, 30 patients progressed to septic shock after 3.0 (1.0–15.0) days, and 63 patients progressed to sepsis after 2.0 (1.0–5.0) days.

    Figure  4.  The short- and long-term mortality rates of older patients and younger patients with sepsis.

    The 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality rates of 228 older patients (≥ 65 years) are all significantly higher than those of 75 younger patients (< 65 years).

    Table  1.   Demographic and clinical data comparison among groups defined by sepsis severity

    Characteristics All patients (n = 303) Sepsis (n = 135) Pre-shock state (n = 93) Septic shock (n = 75) P-value
    Age (years) 77.0 (65.0–84.0) 77.0 (63.0–84.0) 77.0 (67.0–84.5) 78.0 (65.0–83.0) 0.540
    Males 199 (65.7) 96 (71.1) 54 (58.1) 49 (65.3) 0.125
    Comorbidities
    COPD 41 (13.5) 24 (17.8) 10 (10.8) 7 (9.3) 0.148
    Diabetes mellitus 82 (27.1) 33 (24.4) 29 (31.2) 20 (26.7) 0.529
    Cerebrovascular disease 78 (25.7) 41 (30.4) 19 (20.4) 18 (24.0) 0.223
    Neoplasm 44 (14.5) 15 (11.1) 19 (20.4) 10 (13.3) 0.138
    Liver disease 13 (4.3) 3 (2.2) 4 (4.3) 6 (8.0) 0.141
    Heart failure 55 (18.2) 23 (17.0) 19 (20.4) 13 (17.3) 0.790
    Chronic renal failure 41 (13.5) 25 (18.5) 9 (9.7) 7 (9.3) 0.075
    Body mass index (kg/m2) 22.9 (19.7–26.2) 23.3 (20.7–27.2) 22.5 (19.8–26.0) 22.0 (18.4–24.7) 0.049
    Primary site of infection
    Lung 229 (75.6) 120 (88.9) 64 (68.8) 45 (60.0) < 0.001
    Abdomen 19 (6.3) 3 (2.2) 9 (9.7) 7 (9.3) 0.033
    Urinary tract 18 (5.9) 4 (3.0) 6 (6.5) 8 (10.7) 0.075
    Gastrointestinal tract 12 (4.0) 1 (0.7) 2 (2.2) 9 (12.0) < 0.001
    Other site 25 (8.3) 7 (5.2) 12 (12.9) 6 (8.0) 0.114
    Community-acquired infection 240 (79.2) 102 (75.6) 73 (78.5) 65 (86.7) 0.161
    Lactate level (mmol/L) 1.7 (1.0–3.2) 1.0 (0.8–1.4) 2.5 (1.8–3.6) 3.6 (2.2–6.0) < 0.001
    Oliguria 34 (11.2) 5 (3.7) 8 (8.6) 21 (28.0) < 0.001
    PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) 181.0 (119.0–251.0) 181.0 (124.5–245.0) 175.0 (100.0–253.0) 193.5 (129.5–257.0) 0.685
    Serum creatinine (µmol/L) 95.0 (61.0–178.0) 82.0 (57.0–138.0) 96.5 (63.5–167.0) 125.0 (84.0–224.0) 0.003
    Total bilirubin (µmol/mL) 14.7 (10.6–25.0) 12.6 (9.1–17.6) 16.6 (11.3–23.7) 24.2 (13.2–44.9) < 0.001
    Platelets (×109/L) 161.0 (102.0–228.5) 188.0 (129.0–237.0) 136.0 (89.0–201.5) 132.0 (68.0–213.0) 0.001
    Glasgow Coma Scale 14.0 (9.0–15.0) 15.0 (11.0–15.0) 14.0 (10.0–15.0) 11.0 (5.0–15.0) 0.002
    SOFA score 6.0 (4.0–9.0) 5.0 (3.0–6.0) 7.0 (4.0–9.0) 10.0 (7.0–12.0) < 0.001
    APACHE II score 18.0 (13.0–23.0) 17.0 (13.0–22.0) 18.0 (13.0–24.0) 22.0 (16.0–30.0) < 0.001
    Positive blood culture 65 (21.5) 20 (14.8) 20 (21.5) 25 (33.3) 0.007
    Noninvasive ventilation 105 (34.7) 53 (39.3) 32 (34.4) 20 (26.7) 0.185
    Intubated 129 (42.6) 52 (38.5) 40 (43.0) 37 (49.3) 0.314
      Note. Data are presented as n (%) or medians (interquartile ranges). APACHE: acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PaO2/FiO2: ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspired oxygen; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2.   Comparison of mortality among groups defined by sepsis severity

    Mortality Total Sepsis Pre-shock state Septic shock P-value
    All patients n = 303 n = 135 n = 93 n = 75
    28-day 94 (31.0) 25 (18.5) 29 (31.2) 40 (53.3) < 0.001
    90-day 131 (43.2) 44 (32.6) 41 (44.1) 46 (61.3) < 0.001
    180-day 139 (45.9) 46 (34.1) 43 (46.2) 50 (66.7) < 0.001
    1-year 151 (49.8) 51 (37.8) 46 (49.5) 54 (72.0) < 0.001
    Older patients (≥ 65 years) n = 228 n = 99 n = 72 n = 57
    28-day 81 (35.5) 21 (21.2) 27 (37.5) 33 (57.9) < 0.001
    90-day 114 (50.0) 39 (39.4) 36 (50.0) 39 (68.4) 0.002
    180-day 122 (53.5) 41 (41.4) 38 (52.8) 43 (75.4) < 0.001
    1-year 133 (58.3) 46 (46.5) 41 (56.9) 46 (80.7) < 0.001
    Younger patients (< 65 years) n = 75 n = 36 n = 21 n = 18
    28-day 13 (17.3) 4 (11.1) 2 (9.5) 7 (38.9) 0.021
    90-day 17 (22.7) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 7 (38.9) 0.116
    180-day 17 (22.7) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 7 (38.9) 0.116
    1-year 18 (24.0) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 8 (44.4) 0.046
      Note. Data are presented as n (%).
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  3.   Fatality risk in patients with pre-shock state or septic shock using the univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis

    Mortality Variables Hazard ratio 95% confidence interval P-value
    28-day Sepsis 0.540 0.316–0.922 0.024
    Pre-shock state Reference
    Septic shock 2.110 1.307–3.405 0.002
    90-day Sepsis 0.649 0.424–0.994 0.047
    Pre-shock state Reference
    Septic shock 1.815 1.191–2.767 0.006
    180-day Sepsis 0.644 0.425–0.975 0.038
    Pre-shock state Reference
    Septic shock 1.896 1.261–2.853 0.002
    1-year Sepsis 0.663 0.445–0.987 0.043
    Pre-shock state Reference
    Septic shock 1.952 1.316–2.895 0.001
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  4.   Durations of ICU and hospital stays

    Characteristics Total Sepsis Pre-shock state Septic shock P-value
    All patients n = 303 n = 135 n = 93 n = 75
     Duration of ICU stay (days) 12.0 (7.0–21.0) 12.0 (8.0–23.0) 13.0 (6.0–22.0) 10.0 (4.0–18.0) 0.030
     Duration of hospital stay (days) 15.0 (9.0–25.0) 15.0 (10.0–27.0) 16.5 (10.0–26.0) 12.0 (5.0–21.0) 0.024
    Survival patients n = 192 n = 101 n = 59 n = 32
     Duration of ICU stay (days) 11.0 (8.0–20.0) 11.0 (7.0–18.0) 12.0 (7.0–21.0) 13.0 (8.0–24.5) 0.718
     Duration of hospital stay (days) 16.0 (10.0–24.0) 14.0 (10.0–24.0) 17.5 (11.0–26.5) 17.5 (10.5–26.0) 0.476
    Non-survival patients n = 111 n = 34 n = 34 n = 43
     Duration of ICU stay (days) 12.0 (5.0–25.0) 18.5 (12.0–33.0) 14.0 (5.5–26.0) 7.0 (2.0–13.0) < 0.001
     Duration of hospital stay (days) 13.0 (5.0–26.0) 19.5 (12.0–33.0) 14.0 (5.5–26.0) 9.0 (2.0–19.0) < 0.001
      Note. Data are presented as medians (interquartile ranges). ICU, intensive care unit.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, et al. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet, 2018; 392, 75−87. doi:  10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30696-2
    [2] Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 2020; 395, 200−11. doi:  10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7
    [3] Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, et al. Recognizing sepsis as a Global Health priority – a WHO resolution. N Engl J Med, 2017; 377, 414−7. doi:  10.1056/NEJMp1707170
    [4] Knox DB, Lanspa MJ, Kuttler KG, et al. Phenotypic clusters within sepsis-associated multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Intensive Care Med, 2015; 41, 814−22. doi:  10.1007/s00134-015-3764-7
    [5] Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clinical phenotypes for sepsis. JAMA, 2019; 321, 2003−17. doi:  10.1001/jama.2019.5791
    [6] Xu ZX, Mao CS, Su C, et al. Sepsis subphenotyping based on organ dysfunction trajectory. Crit Care, 2022; 26, 197. doi:  10.1186/s13054-022-04071-4
    [7] Bhavani SV, Semler M, Qian ET, et al. Development and validation of novel sepsis subphenotypes using trajectories of vital signs. Intensive Care Med, 2022; 48, 1582−92. doi:  10.1007/s00134-022-06890-z
    [8] Liu R, Greenstein JL, Granite SJ, et al. Data-driven discovery of a novel sepsis pre-shock state predicts impending septic shock in the ICU. Sci Rep, 2019; 9, 6145. doi:  10.1038/s41598-019-42637-5
    [9] Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016; 315, 801−10. doi:  10.1001/jama.2016.0287
    [10] Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med, 2013; 41, 580−637. doi:  10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af
    [11] Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med, 2017; 43, 304−77. doi:  10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6
    [12] Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med, 2021; 49, e1063−143. doi:  10.1097/CCM.0000000000005337
    [13] Zhou QT, Wang M, Li S, et al. Impact of body mass index on survival of medical patients with sepsis: a prospective cohort study in a university hospital in China. BMJ Open, 2018; 8, e021979. doi:  10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021979
    [14] He XJ, Zhu X, Ma YF, et al. What should we focus on in sepsis fluid resuscitation? - a research based on scientometrics and visual analysis. Biomed Environ Sci, 2022; 35, 155−60.
    [15] Wang MP, Jiang L, Zhu B, et al. The prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of sepsis in critically ill patients in China: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Front Med (Lausanne), 2020; 7, 593808.
    [16] Shah AD, MacCallum NS, Harris S, et al. Descriptors of sepsis using the Sepsis-3 criteria: A cohort study in critical care units within the U. K. National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Health Informatics Collaborative. Crit Care Med, 2021; 49, 1883−94. doi:  10.1097/CCM.0000000000005169
    [17] Bauer M, Gerlach H, Vogelmann T, et al. 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, 2020; 24, 239. doi:  10.1186/s13054-020-02950-2
    [18] Liu YC, Yao Y, Yu MM, et al. Frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis, 2022; 22, 564. doi:  10.1186/s12879-022-07543-8
    [19] Martin GS, Mannino DM, Moss M. The effect of age on the development and outcome of adult sepsis. Crit Care Med, 2006; 34, 15−21. doi:  10.1097/01.CCM.0000194535.82812.BA
    [20] Wardi G, Tainter CR, Ramnath VR, et al. Age-related incidence and outcomes of sepsis in California, 2008-2015. J Crit Care, 2021; 62, 212−7. doi:  10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.12.015
    [21] Shankar-Hari M, Harrison DA, Ferrando-Vivas P, et al. Risk factors at index hospitalization associated with longer-term mortality in adult sepsis survivors. JAMA Netw Open, 2019; 2, e194900. doi:  10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4900
    [22] Bouza C, López-Cuadrado T, Saz-Parkinson Z, et al. Epidemiology and recent trends of severe sepsis in Spain: a nationwide population-based analysis (2006-2011). BMC Infect Dis, 2014; 14, 3863. doi:  10.1186/s12879-014-0717-7
    [23] Scheer CS, Fuchs C, Kuhn SO, et al. Quality Improvement initiative for severe sepsis and septic shock reduces 90-day mortality: a 7.5-year observational study. Crit Care Med, 2017; 45, 241−52. doi:  10.1097/CCM.0000000000002069
    [24] He XL, Liao XL, Xie ZC, et al. Pulmonary Infection is an independent risk factor for long-term mortality and quality of life for sepsis patients. Biomed Res Int, 2016; 2016, 4213712.
    [25] Chen YS, Liao TY, Hsu TC, et al. Temporal trend and survival impact of infection source among patients with sepsis: a nationwide study. Crit Care Resusc, 2020; 22, 126−32.
    [26] Casserly B, Phillips GS, Schorr C, et al. Lactate measurements in sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion: results from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database. Crit Care Med, 2015; 43, 567−73. doi:  10.1097/CCM.0000000000000742
    [27] Alataby H, Nfonoyim J, Diaz K, et al. The levels of lactate, troponin, and n-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide are predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock: A retrospective cohort study. Med Sci Monit Basic Res, 2021; 27, e927834.
    [28] Erdoğan M, Findikli HA. Prognostic value of the lactate/albumin ratio for predicting mortality in patients with pneumosepsis in intensive care units. Medicine (Baltimore), 2022; 101, e28748. doi:  10.1097/MD.0000000000028748
    [29] Yu BZ, Chen ML, Zhang Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of interleukin-6 in emergency department sepsis patients. Infect Drug Resist, 2022; 15, 5557−66. doi:  10.2147/IDR.S384351
    [30] Liu ZQ, Meng ZB, Li YF, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with sepsis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2019; 27, 51. doi:  10.1186/s13049-019-0609-3
    [31] Qu ZY, Zhu YB, Wang MP, et al. Prognosis and risk factors of sepsis patients in Chinese ICUs: A retrospective analysis of a cohort database. Shock, 2021; 56, 921−6. doi:  10.1097/SHK.0000000000001784
  • [1] The Writing Committee of the Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China.  Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China 2022: an Updated Summary . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(8): 669-701. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.106
    [2] ZHAI Yi, SI Xiang, WANG Wen Zhi, ZHAO Wen Hua.  Effect of Age and Sex on Stroke Mortality of Young and Middle-aged Adults in China, 2002–2019, and Predictions to 2030 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(4): 305-312. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.036
    [3] QIN Ke Wei, LIU Jian Fei, WU Cheng Lin, ZHANG Chen, ZHOU Li Jun.  Resveratrol Prevents Vibrio vulnificus-Induced Sepsis by Attenuating Necroptosis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(2): 135-145. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.017
    [4] LIU Han Rui, LI Chen Yang, XIA Xue, CHEN Shu Feng, LU Xiang Feng, GU Dong Feng, LIU Fang Chao, HUANG Jian Feng.  Association of Estimated Pulse Wave Velocity and the Dynamic Changes in Estimated Pulse Wave Velocity with All-Cause Mortality among Middle-Aged and Elderly Chinese . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(11): 1001-1011. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.129
    [5] The Writing Committee of the Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China.  Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China 2021: An Updated Summary . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 35(7): 573-603. doi: 10.3967/bes2022.079
    [6] YANG Zhi Hui, SONG Ying Gai, LI Ruo Yu.  A Ten-year Retrospective Study of Invasive Candidiasis in a Tertiary Hospital in Beijing . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(10): 773-788. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.107
    [7] WANG Zhuo Qun, ZHAI Yi, LI Man, YANG Xiu Feng, ZHANG Jian, REN Ze Ping, ZHANG Mei, SONG Peng Kun, ZHAO Yan Fang, MI Sheng Quan, ZHANG Lu, YANG Mao Xiang, ZHAO Wen Hua.  Association between Baseline SBP/DBP and All-Cause Mortality in Residents of Shanxi, China: A Population-based Cohort Study from 2002 to 2015 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(1): 1-8. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.002
    [8] LAI Yu Ji, LIU Er Yong, WANG Li Ming, Jamie P MORANO, WANG Ning, Kaveh KHOSHNOOD, ZHOU Lin, CHENG Shi Ming.  Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection-Associated Mortality during Pulmonary Tuberculosis Treatment in Six Provinces of China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(6): 421-428. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.059
    [9] QU Hong Mei, BAI Ya Na, CHENG Ning, DAI Min, ZHENG Tong Zhang, WANG Dennis, LI Hai Yan, HU Xiao Bin, LI Juan Sheng, REN Xiao Wei, SHANG Hui.  Trend Analysis of Cancer Mortality in the Jinchang Cohort, China, 2001-2010 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(5): 364-369. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.050
    [10] OU Chun Quan, YANG Jun, OU Qiao Qun, LIU Hua Zhang, LIN Guo Zhen, CHEN Ping Yan, QIAN Jun.  The Impact of Relative Humidity and Atmospheric Pressure on Mortality in Guangzhou, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2014, 27(12): 917-925. doi: 10.3967/bes2014.132
    [11] LI Yan Hong, SONG Gui Xiang, YU Yan, ZHOU De Ding, ZHANG Hong Wei.  Study on Age and Education Level and Their Relationship with Fall-Related Injuries in Shanghai, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(2): 79-86. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.02.001
    [12] YANG Jun, LIU Hua Zhang, OU Chun Quan, LIN Guo Zhen, DING Yan, ZHOU Qin, SHEN Ji Chuan, CHEN Ping Yan.  Impact of Heat Wave in 2005 on Mortality in Guangzhou, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(8): 647-654. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.08.003
    [13] LIU Xiao Lei, TAO Yong Kang, YAN Sheng Tao, QI Zhi Wei, LU Hai Tao, WANG Hai Feng, GU Cheng Dong, ZHANG Guo Qiang.  Correlation of Inferior Vena Cava Respiratory Variability Index with Central Venous Pressure and Hemodynamic Parameters in Ventilated Pigs with Septic Shock . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(6): 500-503. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.06.012
    [14] ZHANG Hui, HUANG Fei, CHEN Wei, DU Xin, ZHOU Mai Geng, HU Jia, WANG Li Xia.  Estimates of Tuberculosis Mortality Rates in China Using the Disease Surveillance Point System, 2004-2010 . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 483-488. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.04.015
    [15] LI Tian Tian, GAO Yan Lin, WEI Zai Hua, WANG Jing, GUO Ya Fei, LIU Fan, LIU Zhao Rong, CHENG Yan Li.  Assessing Heat-related Mortality Risks in Beijing, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 458-464. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.04.011
    [16] ZHENG XiaoYing, SONG XinMing, CHEN Gong, YOU YunZhong, REN Qiang, LIU JuFen, ZHANG Lei, TAN LingFang, WEI JiHong, CHEN QiuYuan.  Health Inequalities during 20 Years of Rapid Economic Development in China (1980-2000): A Mortality Analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2011, 24(4): 329-334. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2011.04.002
    [17] WEN HongBo, ZHANG ZhenXin, HUANG JueBin, DUAN LeiLei, WANG QingHua.  Mortality of Dementia and Its Major Subtypes in Urban and Rural Communities of Beijing . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2011, 24(5): 483-490. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2011.05.005
    [18] GUO-HAI CHEN, GUI-XIANG SONG, LI-LI JIANG, YUN-HUI ZHANG, NAI-QING ZHAO, BING-HENG CHEN, HAI-DONG KAN.  Interaction Between Ambient Particles and Ozone and Its Effect on Daily Mortality . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(6): 502-505.
    [19] LU LI, TONG-DA SUN, Xing ZHANG, RUI-NAN LAI, XIU-YANG LI, XUE-JIN FAN, KENJI MORINAGA.  Cohort Studies on Cancer Mortality Among Workers Exposed Only to Chrysotile Asbestos:a Meta-analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2004, 17(4): 459-468.
    [20] HAI-DONG KAN, JIAN JIA, BING-HENG CHEN.  Temperature and Daily Mortality in Shanghai: A Time-series Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2003, 16(2): 133-139.
  • 加载中
图(4) / 表ll (4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  151
  • HTML全文浏览量:  72
  • PDF下载量:  11
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-07-31
  • 录用日期:  2023-10-09
  • 刊出日期:  2023-12-01

Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150
    基金项目:  This work was funded by the Clinical Cohort Construction Program of Peking University Third Hospital [No. BYSYDL2021019] and the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 82272197].
    作者简介:

    ZHANG Lei, male, born in 1989, MD, majoring in critical care medicine

    GAI Xiao Yan, female, born in 1981, PhD, majoring in respiratory and critical care medicine

    通讯作者: ZHOU Qing Tao, E-mail: qtzhou75@163.comSUN Yong Chang, E-mail: suny@bjmu.edu.cn
注释:
1) AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) COMPETING INTERESTS:

English Abstract

ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LI Xin, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, ZHAO Fei Fan, ZHOU Qing Tao, SUN Yong Chang. Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(12): 1152-1161. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150
Citation: ZHANG Lei, GAI Xiao Yan, LI Xin, LIANG Ying, WANG Meng, ZHAO Fei Fan, ZHOU Qing Tao, SUN Yong Chang. Influence of the Pre-shock State on the Prognosis of Medical Patients with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(12): 1152-1161. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.150
    • Sepsis is a common condition associated with high mortality and long-term morbidity[1]. Despite declining age-standardized incidence and mortality rates, sepsis remains a major global health concern[2]. Furthermore, sepsis has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a global health priority[3].

      Although asepsis is generally treated as a single disease, identifying distinct sepsis clusters can significantly improve research, treatment, and patient prognosis. Knox et al.[4] identified four distinct clusters in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: 1) shock with elevated creatinine, 2) minimal multi-organ dysfunction syndrome, 3) shock with hypoxemia and altered mental status, and 4) hepatic disease. The mortality rates for these clusters were 11%, 12%, 28%, and 21%, respectively (P < 0.001). Seymour et al.[5] identified four sepsis phenotypes: α (33%), with the lowest vasopressor use; β (27%), older with more chronic illnesses and renal dysfunction; γ (27%), marked by inflammation and pulmonary dysfunction; and δ (13%), with liver dysfunction and septic shock. In the derivation cohort, the 28-day mortality rates were 5%, 13%, 24%, and 40% for the α, β, γ, and δ phenotypes, respectively. Xu et al.[6] identified four distinct Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores that are trajectory-based sub-phenotypes of sepsis: 1) rapidly worsening (13.1%), 2) delayed worsening (20.5%), 3) rapidly improving (41.3%), and 4) delayed improving (25.1%). The rapidly worsening sub-phenotype had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (28.3%, P < 0.001), whereas those with an improving sub-phenotype of sepsis demonstrated a lower mortality risk. Bhavani et al.[7] identified four vital sign trajectory sub-phenotypes: Group A (28%), presenting hyperthermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, and hypotension; Group B (13%), presenting hyperthermia, tachycardia, tachypnea (less pronounced than Group A), and hypertension; and Groups C (32%) and D (27%), presenting lower vital signs, including patients with normotension and hypotension, respectively. Groups A and B included younger patients with varying comorbidities. Those in Groups A and D had the highest vasopressor use (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analyses showed significantly higher 30-day mortality rates in Groups A and D (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). These phenotypes have distinct clinical outcomes that reflect underlying pathophysiological differences and could potentially facilitate tailored treatment or research directions.

      Liu et al.[8] reported a novel clinical state of sepsis referred to as “pre-shock”. Patients with sepsis who entered this state were highly likely to develop septic shock at some point in the future. This pre-shock state was physiologically distinct from both the sepsis and septic shock states. The top three distinguishing features of the pre-shock state were lactate, cardiovascular SOFA score, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. To date, the definition of “pre-shock state” remains controversial.

      Based on the Sepsis-3 criteria[9], sepsis can be classified as either sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis is characterized by a rise in the SOFA score by ≥ 2 points. Septic shock is defined as the need for vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mmHg and serum lactate level exceeding 2 mmol/L (> 18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia[9]. Notably, some patients with sepsis may experience hypotension or elevated lactate level, although they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for septic shock. We hypothesized that the prognosis of these patients differs from that of patients with sepsis or septic shock. In this study, these patients were categorized as the “pre-shock state” group, and we evaluated the impact of the pre-shock state on short- and long-term mortality in patients with sepsis.

    • This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university-affiliated urban teaching hospital in China between May 2015 and December 2021. The study protocol was approved (approval number: M2022135) by the Medical Science Research Ethics Committee of Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. The need to obtain written informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study. Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

    • Patients with sepsis who were admitted to the medical ICU were included. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients who met the Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria, which were defined as the presence of life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, with SOFA score of 2 points; and 2) age ≥ 18 years.

      Patients were excluded from the study if they met one of the following criteria: 1) had sepsis that required surgical treatment or was caused by an infection related to a surgical procedure; 2) had a positive human immunodeficiency virus antibody titer or known/suspected tuberculosis at baseline; 3) had an expected lifespan < 3 months owing to severe preexisting comorbidities, as this could potentially influence the analysis of survival-related outcomes; 4) had an active do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate order; and 5) pregnancy.

      All patients received treatment according to the International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock[10-12]. We collected the following demographic and clinical data: sex, age, weight, height, primary site of infection, community-acquired or hospital-acquired infection, blood pressure, lactate level, urine output, partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2), serum creatinine, total bilirubin, platelets, GCS score, SOFA score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, positive blood culture, noninvasive ventilation, intubation, duration of ICU stay, and duration of hospital stay. Body mass index (BMI) was defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters (kg/m2), which was used in our previous study[13]. Patients who survived till discharge were followed up for 1 year.

      Sepsis and septic shock were defined using the Sepsis-3 criteria. Sepsis was defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the SOFA score by ≥ 2 points. Septic shock was a subset of sepsis, in which underlying circulatory and cellular metabolism abnormalities were profound enough to substantially increase mortality. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by vasopressor requirement for maintenance of a mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mmHg and serum lactate level > 2 mmol/L (> 18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia.

      In this study, we defined the pre-shock state of sepsis as the reversal of hypotension after adequate fluid resuscitation or a lactate level > 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) without shock. Considering this, the patients were assigned to the sepsis, pre-shock state, or septic shock groups for analysis.

    • The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were the 90-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality rates.

    • Continuous variables are presented as medians (interquartile ranges), and categorical variables are presented as numbers (%). Clinical data were compared among the three study groups (sepsis, pre-shock state, and septic shock). Continuous variables were compared using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis H test, whereas categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show the survival probabilities at day 365 according to disease severity classification and compared using the log-rank test. Compared with sepsis, the death risk analysis of the pre-shock state and septic shock was performed using univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

      Patients were subdivided into older (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patient groups. The mortality rates of the two groups were compared using the chi-square test.

      Patients were also subdivided into survival and non-survival groups based on in-hospital clinical outcomes. The durations of hospital and ICU stays were compared using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

      All analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

    • This study included 314 patients. Of these, 303 patients (199 males [65.7%]) completed the 1-year follow-up (11 patients were lost to follow-up and removed from the final statistical analysis) (Figure 1). The median age (interquartile range) was 77 (65–84) years, and 228 patients (75.2%) were aged > 65 years. The most common primary site of infection was the lung (229 patients, 75.6%), followed by the abdomen (19 patients, 6.3%), urinary tract (18 patients, 5.9%), gastrointestinal tract (12 patients, 4.0%), and other sites (25 patients, 8.3%). The SOFA score was 6.0 (4.0–9.0) points, and the APACHE II score was 18.0 (13.0–23.0) points. Blood culture was positive in 65 patients (21.5%). In total, 105 patients (34.7%) received noninvasive ventilation, and 129 (42.6%) received invasive mechanical ventilation. The 28-day, in-hospital, 90-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 31.0%, 36.6%, 43.2%, 45.9%, and 49.8%, respectively. The median durations of ICU and hospital stays were 12 (7–21) and 15 (9–25) days, respectively (Table 1).

      Figure 1.  Flow diagram illustrates the study design and patient progression.

      Table 1.  Demographic and clinical data comparison among groups defined by sepsis severity

      Characteristics All patients (n = 303) Sepsis (n = 135) Pre-shock state (n = 93) Septic shock (n = 75) P-value
      Age (years) 77.0 (65.0–84.0) 77.0 (63.0–84.0) 77.0 (67.0–84.5) 78.0 (65.0–83.0) 0.540
      Males 199 (65.7) 96 (71.1) 54 (58.1) 49 (65.3) 0.125
      Comorbidities
      COPD 41 (13.5) 24 (17.8) 10 (10.8) 7 (9.3) 0.148
      Diabetes mellitus 82 (27.1) 33 (24.4) 29 (31.2) 20 (26.7) 0.529
      Cerebrovascular disease 78 (25.7) 41 (30.4) 19 (20.4) 18 (24.0) 0.223
      Neoplasm 44 (14.5) 15 (11.1) 19 (20.4) 10 (13.3) 0.138
      Liver disease 13 (4.3) 3 (2.2) 4 (4.3) 6 (8.0) 0.141
      Heart failure 55 (18.2) 23 (17.0) 19 (20.4) 13 (17.3) 0.790
      Chronic renal failure 41 (13.5) 25 (18.5) 9 (9.7) 7 (9.3) 0.075
      Body mass index (kg/m2) 22.9 (19.7–26.2) 23.3 (20.7–27.2) 22.5 (19.8–26.0) 22.0 (18.4–24.7) 0.049
      Primary site of infection
      Lung 229 (75.6) 120 (88.9) 64 (68.8) 45 (60.0) < 0.001
      Abdomen 19 (6.3) 3 (2.2) 9 (9.7) 7 (9.3) 0.033
      Urinary tract 18 (5.9) 4 (3.0) 6 (6.5) 8 (10.7) 0.075
      Gastrointestinal tract 12 (4.0) 1 (0.7) 2 (2.2) 9 (12.0) < 0.001
      Other site 25 (8.3) 7 (5.2) 12 (12.9) 6 (8.0) 0.114
      Community-acquired infection 240 (79.2) 102 (75.6) 73 (78.5) 65 (86.7) 0.161
      Lactate level (mmol/L) 1.7 (1.0–3.2) 1.0 (0.8–1.4) 2.5 (1.8–3.6) 3.6 (2.2–6.0) < 0.001
      Oliguria 34 (11.2) 5 (3.7) 8 (8.6) 21 (28.0) < 0.001
      PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) 181.0 (119.0–251.0) 181.0 (124.5–245.0) 175.0 (100.0–253.0) 193.5 (129.5–257.0) 0.685
      Serum creatinine (µmol/L) 95.0 (61.0–178.0) 82.0 (57.0–138.0) 96.5 (63.5–167.0) 125.0 (84.0–224.0) 0.003
      Total bilirubin (µmol/mL) 14.7 (10.6–25.0) 12.6 (9.1–17.6) 16.6 (11.3–23.7) 24.2 (13.2–44.9) < 0.001
      Platelets (×109/L) 161.0 (102.0–228.5) 188.0 (129.0–237.0) 136.0 (89.0–201.5) 132.0 (68.0–213.0) 0.001
      Glasgow Coma Scale 14.0 (9.0–15.0) 15.0 (11.0–15.0) 14.0 (10.0–15.0) 11.0 (5.0–15.0) 0.002
      SOFA score 6.0 (4.0–9.0) 5.0 (3.0–6.0) 7.0 (4.0–9.0) 10.0 (7.0–12.0) < 0.001
      APACHE II score 18.0 (13.0–23.0) 17.0 (13.0–22.0) 18.0 (13.0–24.0) 22.0 (16.0–30.0) < 0.001
      Positive blood culture 65 (21.5) 20 (14.8) 20 (21.5) 25 (33.3) 0.007
      Noninvasive ventilation 105 (34.7) 53 (39.3) 32 (34.4) 20 (26.7) 0.185
      Intubated 129 (42.6) 52 (38.5) 40 (43.0) 37 (49.3) 0.314
        Note. Data are presented as n (%) or medians (interquartile ranges). APACHE: acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PaO2/FiO2: ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspired oxygen; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment.

      Patients were divided into sepsis (135 patients [44.6%]), pre-shock state (93 patients [30.7%]), and septic shock (75 patients [24.8%]) groups. The lactate level, frequency of oliguria, serum creatinine level, total bilirubin level, SOFA score, APACHE II score, and frequency of positive blood culture significantly increased with increased disease severity, whereas BMI, platelet count, and GCS score significantly decreased (Table 1). The 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality rates of the pre-shock state group (31.2%, 44.1%, 46.2%, and 49.5%, respectively) were all significantly higher than those of the sepsis group (18.5%, 32.6%, 34.1%, and 37.8%, respectively) and significantly lower than those of the septic shock group (53.3%, 61.3%, 66.7%, and 72.0%, respectively), especially in older patients (Table 2). Differences in the 1-year mortality rates among the three groups were demonstrated using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (Figure 2).

      Table 2.  Comparison of mortality among groups defined by sepsis severity

      Mortality Total Sepsis Pre-shock state Septic shock P-value
      All patients n = 303 n = 135 n = 93 n = 75
      28-day 94 (31.0) 25 (18.5) 29 (31.2) 40 (53.3) < 0.001
      90-day 131 (43.2) 44 (32.6) 41 (44.1) 46 (61.3) < 0.001
      180-day 139 (45.9) 46 (34.1) 43 (46.2) 50 (66.7) < 0.001
      1-year 151 (49.8) 51 (37.8) 46 (49.5) 54 (72.0) < 0.001
      Older patients (≥ 65 years) n = 228 n = 99 n = 72 n = 57
      28-day 81 (35.5) 21 (21.2) 27 (37.5) 33 (57.9) < 0.001
      90-day 114 (50.0) 39 (39.4) 36 (50.0) 39 (68.4) 0.002
      180-day 122 (53.5) 41 (41.4) 38 (52.8) 43 (75.4) < 0.001
      1-year 133 (58.3) 46 (46.5) 41 (56.9) 46 (80.7) < 0.001
      Younger patients (< 65 years) n = 75 n = 36 n = 21 n = 18
      28-day 13 (17.3) 4 (11.1) 2 (9.5) 7 (38.9) 0.021
      90-day 17 (22.7) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 7 (38.9) 0.116
      180-day 17 (22.7) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 7 (38.9) 0.116
      1-year 18 (24.0) 5 (13.9) 5 (23.8) 8 (44.4) 0.046
        Note. Data are presented as n (%).

      Figure 2.  Kaplan-Meier survival plot for 1-year survival rates of 303 patients, which included those in sepsis, pre-shock state, or septic shock.

      Compared with the pre-shock state group, mortality risks in the 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year periods were significantly lower in the sepsis group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.540, 0.649, 0.644, and 0.663, respectively; all P < 0.05) and higher in the septic shock group (HR: 2.110, 1.815, 1.896, and 1.952, respectively; all P < 0.01) according to univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis (Table 3).

      Table 3.  Fatality risk in patients with pre-shock state or septic shock using the univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis

      Mortality Variables Hazard ratio 95% confidence interval P-value
      28-day Sepsis 0.540 0.316–0.922 0.024
      Pre-shock state Reference
      Septic shock 2.110 1.307–3.405 0.002
      90-day Sepsis 0.649 0.424–0.994 0.047
      Pre-shock state Reference
      Septic shock 1.815 1.191–2.767 0.006
      180-day Sepsis 0.644 0.425–0.975 0.038
      Pre-shock state Reference
      Septic shock 1.896 1.261–2.853 0.002
      1-year Sepsis 0.663 0.445–0.987 0.043
      Pre-shock state Reference
      Septic shock 1.952 1.316–2.895 0.001

      Of the 93 patients in the pre-shock state group, 30 progressed to septic shock after 3.0 (1.0–15.0) days, and 63 improved to sepsis after 2.0 (1.0–5.0) days (Figure 3).

      Figure 3.  Evolution of the condition in patients with a pre-shock state of sepsis

      The 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality rates of the older patients (≥ 65 years) were all significantly higher than those of the younger patients (< 65 years) (35.5% vs. 17.3%, P = 0.003; 50.0% vs. 22.7%, P < 0.001; 53.5% vs. 22.7%, P < 0.001; and 58.3% vs. 24.0%, P < 0.001, respectively; Figure 4).

      Figure 4.  The short- and long-term mortality rates of older patients and younger patients with sepsis.

      The ICU and hospital stay durations were 12.0 (7.0–21.0) and 15.0 (9.0–25.0) days, respectively (Table 4). In the survival group, the ICU and hospital stay durations increased with the severity of sepsis (Table 4). However, in the non-survival group, the trend was the opposite (Table 4) because a more severe disease resulted in premature deaths.

      Table 4.  Durations of ICU and hospital stays

      Characteristics Total Sepsis Pre-shock state Septic shock P-value
      All patients n = 303 n = 135 n = 93 n = 75
       Duration of ICU stay (days) 12.0 (7.0–21.0) 12.0 (8.0–23.0) 13.0 (6.0–22.0) 10.0 (4.0–18.0) 0.030
       Duration of hospital stay (days) 15.0 (9.0–25.0) 15.0 (10.0–27.0) 16.5 (10.0–26.0) 12.0 (5.0–21.0) 0.024
      Survival patients n = 192 n = 101 n = 59 n = 32
       Duration of ICU stay (days) 11.0 (8.0–20.0) 11.0 (7.0–18.0) 12.0 (7.0–21.0) 13.0 (8.0–24.5) 0.718
       Duration of hospital stay (days) 16.0 (10.0–24.0) 14.0 (10.0–24.0) 17.5 (11.0–26.5) 17.5 (10.5–26.0) 0.476
      Non-survival patients n = 111 n = 34 n = 34 n = 43
       Duration of ICU stay (days) 12.0 (5.0–25.0) 18.5 (12.0–33.0) 14.0 (5.5–26.0) 7.0 (2.0–13.0) < 0.001
       Duration of hospital stay (days) 13.0 (5.0–26.0) 19.5 (12.0–33.0) 14.0 (5.5–26.0) 9.0 (2.0–19.0) < 0.001
        Note. Data are presented as medians (interquartile ranges). ICU, intensive care unit.
    • This retrospective cohort study focused on medical patients with sepsis admitted to the ICU. The results showed that the short- and long-term mortality rates were significantly higher in the pre-shock state group than in the sepsis group but significantly lower than in the septic shock group. Moreover, the mortality rates of older patients were significantly higher than that of younger patients. The results of this study supported the inclusion of the pre-shock state as a distinct entity of sepsis.

      Sepsis has always been a serious clinical challenge in the ICU[14,15]. The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with sepsis was generally considered to be > 10%, whereas the in-hospital mortality of septic shock was > 40%. Wang et al.[15] conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study in China and found that the ICU mortality rate was 13.1% in patients with sepsis, 39.0% in patients with septic shock, and varied with geographical regions. Shah et al.[16] reported that the ICU mortality rate according to the source of sepsis was highest for ICU-acquired sepsis (23.7%), followed by hospital-acquired sepsis (18.6%) and community-acquired sepsis (12.9%). Interestingly, a previous meta-analysis showed that the prognosis of sepsis was even worse. The meta-analysis reported that more than 25%–30% of patients with sepsis died from the condition, with hospital mortality for septic shock approaching 40%–60%[1]. Bauer et al.[17] performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 170 studies. The results showed that the average 30- and 90-day sepsis mortality rates were 24.4% and 32.2%, respectively, whereas the average 30- and 90-day septic shock mortality rates were 34.7% and 38.5%, respectively. Rates varied among regions, with 30-day sepsis mortality rates of 19.6% in North America, 23.6% in Europe, and 18.7% in Australia, whereas the 30-day septic shock mortality rates were 33.7% in North America, 32.5% in Europe, and 26.4% in Australia. Recently, Liu et al.[18] reported the mortality rates of sepsis and septic shock in China in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies. The pooled mortality rates of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock were 29.0%, 31.1%, and 37.3%, respectively, which were much higher than those in North America, European countries, and Australia. In this study, the 28-day mortality rates of sepsis and septic shock were 31.0% and 53.3%, respectively. Our results were even higher, probably because 75.2% of patients were aged > 65 years, and 75.6% of patients had pulmonary sepsis.

      Age is an important factor influencing sepsis prognosis. The incidence of sepsis is disproportionately increased in older adults (≥ 65 years). Age is also an independent predictor of mortality[19]. Age > 65 years is one of the factors associated with increased mortality (odds ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.80–1.84)[20]. Compared with younger patients with sepsis, older non-survivors of sepsis die earlier during hospitalization[19]. Moreover, age is independently associated with long-term mortality. Shankar–Hari et al.[21] observed the long-term mortality in adult sepsis survivors with a maximum follow-up period of 6 years. Sepsis survivors had a mean (standard deviation) age of 61.3 (17.0) years. However, 1 year after hospital discharge, 15% of sepsis survivors had died, with 6%–8% dying per year over the subsequent 5 years. In this study, the 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality rates were all significantly higher in older patients than in younger patients. These findings are consistent with previous studies. Furthermore, the long-term mortality of older patients was even higher.

      Lower respiratory tract infection, the most common cause of medical sepsis, is associated with the highest mortality rate. In a national population-based study of sepsis in Spain, medical diagnostic categories comprised the majority of sepsis causes, whereas surgical diagnoses were identified in only 26% of cases[22]. Scheer et al.[23] found that the most common primary site of infection differed between those with medical versus surgical sepsis. The lung was the most common primary site (42.0%–56.7%) in medical patients, whereas the abdomen (48.4%–64.4%) was the most common in surgical patients. He et al.[24] analyzed 483 patients with sepsis. Of these, 272 (56.3%) had pulmonary sepsis, and 180 (37.3%) had abdominal sepsis. Pulmonary sepsis led to higher ICU (31.7% vs. 12.6%) and 1-year mortality (45.4% vs. 24.4%) rates than abdominal sepsis. Additionally, pulmonary infection was a risk factor for 1-year mortality and reduced quality of life after sepsis. Health insurance claims data of Taiwan, China from 2002 to 2012 were analyzed to determine the incidence and mortality trends among patients with emergency-treated and hospital-treated sepsis. Lower respiratory tract infection was found to be the most common source of sepsis in patients and was associated with the highest mortality rate[25].

      The pre-shock state is a novel clinical sepsis state. Sepsis is a heterogeneous condition. Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may facilitate more precise therapy and improve patient care. Liu et al.[8] studied the “pre-shock” state (defined as physiologically distinct from both the sepsis and septic shock states). The top three distinguishing features of the pre-shock state were: lactate, cardiovascular SOFA score, and GCS score. Serum lactate is commonly measured and significantly associated with the mortality of patients with sepsis[26-29]. It has superior discriminative power compared with quick SOFA scores and shows a discriminative ability similar to those of SOFA scores[30]. Based on the important predictive role of hyperlactacidemia, Sepsis-3 proposed a new definition of septic shock that excludes patients without hyperlactacidemia. However, Qu et al.[31] conducted a retrospective multicenter observational study in a Chinese cohort, which demonstrated that patients with hypotension but without hyperlactacidemia in the ICU also show high 28-day mortality. They included 1,194 patients in the study (282 with hypotension and hyperlactacidemia, 250 with hypotension but without hyperlactacidemia, 161 with hyperlactacidemia but without hypotension, and 501 without hypotension and hyperlactacidemia). The 28-day mortality rates of the four groups were 48.2%, 43.2%, 26.1%, and 24.8%, respectively. Age, APACHE II score, hyperlactacidemia, hypotension, intra-abdominal infection, and cancer increased the risk of 28-day mortality, whereas soft tissue infection and coming from the operating room were associated with a decreased mortality risk. Both hypotension and hyperlactacidemia were independent risk factors of mortality in patients with sepsis, even if the patients did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria of septic shock. Because hypotension and hyperlactacidemia are the two main characteristics of the pre-shock state, we defined the pre-shock state in this study as the reversal of hypotension after adequate fluid resuscitation or lactate levels > 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) without shock. The results of our study showed that the short- and long-term prognosis of the pre-shock state group were significantly different from those of the sepsis and septic shock groups. Our findings suggest that the pre-shock state is a potentially distinct sepsis sub-phenotype. Compared with patients with sepsis but without hypotension and hyperlactacidemia, mortality risks in the 28-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year periods significantly increased for those in the pre-shock state and those with septic shock. Consequently, recognizing the pre-shock state may aid in the early identification of patients in severe conditions and expedite prompt treatment, including resuscitation and antimicrobial therapy. These measures are crucial for improving clinical outcomes.

    • Our study has several limitations. First, only medical patients with sepsis were included, and patients were excluded if they had sepsis that required surgical treatment or was caused by an infection related to a surgical procedure. Second, the study included 303 participants, and a large proportion of these patients were aged > 65 years and had pulmonary sepsis, which may have led to a sample-related bias. Third, it was a retrospective single-center study; further research is needed to determine the utility of the pre-shock state of sepsis in clinical care and to inform trial design and interpretation.

    • The short- and long-term mortality rates of patients in the pre-shock state were significantly different from those of patients with sepsis or septic shock. The findings of this study suggest that a modified sepsis severity classification that considered sepsis, pre-shock state, and septic shock may provide additional prognostic information.

参考文献 (31)

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回