110
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Brazilian Sepsis Epidemiological Study (BASES study)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Consistent data about the incidence and outcome of sepsis in Latin American intensive care units (ICUs), including Brazil, are lacking. This study was designed to verify the actual incidence density and outcome of sepsis in Brazilian ICUs. We also assessed the association between the Consensus Conference criteria and outcome

          Methods

          This is a multicenter observational cohort study performed in five private and public, mixed ICUs from two different regions of Brazil. We prospectively followed 1383 adult patients consecutively admitted to those ICUs from May 2001 to January 2002, until their discharge, 28th day of stay, or death. For all patients we collected the following data at ICU admission: age, gender, hospital and ICU admission diagnosis, APACHE II score, and associated underlying diseases. During the following days, we looked for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock criteria, as well as recording the sequential organ failure assessment score. Infection was diagnosed according to CDC criteria for nosocomial infection, and for community-acquired infection, clinical, radiological and microbiological parameters were used.

          Results

          For the whole cohort, median age was 65.2 years (49–76), median length of stay was 2 days (1–6), and the overall 28-day mortality rate was 21.8%. Considering 1383 patients, the incidence density rates for sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 61.4, 35.6 and 30.0 per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The mortality rate of patients with SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock increased progressively from 24.3% to 34.7%, 47.3% and 52.2%, respectively. For patients with SIRS without infection the mortality rate was 11.3%. The main source of infection was lung/respiratory tract.

          Conclusion

          Our preliminary data suggest that sepsis is a major public health problem in Brazilian ICUs, with an incidence density about 57 per 1000 patient-days. Moreover, there was a close association between ACCP/SCCM categories and mortality rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis.

          (1992)
          To define the terms "sepsis" and "organ failure" in a precise manner. Review of the medical literature and the use of expert testimony at a consensus conference. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) headquarters in Northbrook, IL. Leadership members of ACCP/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). An ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference was held in August of 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae. New definitions were offered for some terms, while others were discarded. Broad definitions of sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome were proposed, along with detailed physiologic variables by which a patient could be categorized. Definitions for severe sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome were also offered. The use of severity scoring methods were recommended when dealing with septic patients as an adjunctive tool to assess mortality. Appropriate methods and applications for the use and testing of new therapies were recommended. The use of these terms and techniques should assist clinicians and researchers who deal with sepsis and its sequelae.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A prospective study.

            Define the epidemiology of the four recently classified syndromes describing the biologic response to infection: systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Prospective cohort study with a follow-up of 28 days or until discharge if earlier. Three intensive care units and three general wards in a tertiary health care institution. Patients were included if they met at least two of the criteria for SIRS: fever or hypothermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, or abnormal white blood cell count. Development of any stage of the biologic response to infection: sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, end-organ dysfunction, and death. During the study period 3708 patients were admitted to the survey units, and 2527 (68%) met the criteria for SIRS. The incidence density rates for SIRS in the surgical, medical, and cardiovascular intensive care units were 857, 804, and 542 episodes per 1000 patient-days, respectively, and 671, 495, and 320 per 1000 patient-days for the medical, cardiothoracic, and general surgery wards, respectively. Among patients with SIRS, 649 (26%) developed sepsis, 467 (18%) developed severe sepsis, and 110 (4%) developed septic shock. The median interval from SIRS to sepsis was inversely correlated with the number of SIRS criteria (two, three, or all four) that the patients met. As the population of patients progressed from SIRS to septic shock, increasing proportions had adult respiratory distress syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, acute renal failure, and shock. Positive blood cultures were found in 17% of patients with sepsis, in 25% with severe sepsis, and in 69% with septic shock. There were also stepwise increases in mortality rates in the hierarchy from SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock: 7%, 16%, 20%, and 46%, respectively. Of interest, we also observed equal numbers of patients who appeared to have sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock but who had negative cultures. They had been prescribed empirical antibiotics for a median of 3 days. The cause of the systemic inflammatory response in these culture-negative populations is unknown, but they had similar morbidity and mortality rates as the respective culture-positive populations. This prospective epidemiologic study of SIRS and related conditions provides, to our knowledge, the first evidence of a clinical progression from SIRS to sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Caring for the critically ill patient. High-dose antithrombin III in severe sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.

              Activation of the coagulation system and depletion of endogenous anticoagulants are frequently found in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Diffuse microthrombus formation may induce organ dysfunction and lead to excess mortality in septic shock. Antithrombin III may provide protection from multiorgan failure and improve survival in severely ill patients. To determine if high-dose antithrombin III (administered within 6 hours of onset) would provide a survival advantage in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 clinical trial in patients with severe sepsis (the KyberSept Trial) was conducted from March 1997 through January 2000. A total of 2314 adult patients were randomized into 2 equal groups of 1157 to receive either intravenous antithrombin III (30 000 IU in total over 4 days) or a placebo (1% human albumin). All-cause mortality 28 days after initiation of study medication. Overall mortality at 28 days in the antithrombin III treatment group was 38.9% vs 38.7% in the placebo group (P =.94). Secondary end points, including mortality at 56 and 90 days and survival time in the intensive care unit, did not differ between the antithrombin III and placebo groups. In the subgroup of patients who did not receive concomitant heparin during the 4-day treatment phase (n = 698), the 28-day mortality was nonsignificantly lower in the antithrombin III group (37.8%) than in the placebo group (43.6%) (P =.08). This trend became significant after 90 days (n = 686; 44.9% for antithrombin III group vs 52.5% for placebo group; P =.03). In patients receiving antithrombin III and concomitant heparin, a significantly increased bleeding incidence was observed (23.8% for antithrombin III group vs 13.5% for placebo group; P<.001). High-dose antithrombin III therapy had no effect on 28-day all-cause mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock when administered within 6 hours after the onset. High-dose antithrombin III was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage when administered with heparin. There was some evidence to suggest a treatment benefit of antithrombin III in the subgroup of patients not receiving concomitant heparin.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2004
                15 June 2004
                : 8
                : 4
                : R251-R260
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Supervisor, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; Associate Professor, Medical School, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ]Staff Member, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ]Resident of Internal Medicine, Medical School, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
                [4 ]Research Nurse, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
                [5 ]Fellow, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
                [6 ]Head, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
                [7 ]Staff Member, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Governador Celso Ramos, Florianopolis, Brazil
                [8 ]Head, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital dos Servidores do Estado São Paulo, Brazil
                [9 ]Staff Member, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital dos Servidores do Estado, São Paulo, Brazil
                [10 ]Research Nurse, Intensive Care Unit, Medical School, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
                [11 ]Staff Member, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
                [12 ]Head, Intensive Care Unit, Medical School, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
                [13 ]Head, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
                Article
                cc2892
                10.1186/cc2892
                522852
                15312226
                1064a9d8-f2dd-4eb5-ba57-0c52fe9b4553
                Copyright © 2004 Silva et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
                History
                : 13 February 2004
                : 25 March 2004
                : 22 April 2004
                : 21 May 2004
                Categories
                Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                sepsis,epidemiology,incidence,outcome
                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                sepsis, epidemiology, incidence, outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article