4.7 Article

Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcomes of Sepsis in Critically Ill Post-craniotomy Patients: A Single-Center Prospective Cohort Study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.895991

关键词

sepsis; post-craniotomy; incidence; outcome; risk factor

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [Z201100005520050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that sepsis is a common complication in critically ill post-craniotomy patients. Advanced age, male gender, hypertension, trauma, postoperative intracranial complications, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale on the first postoperative day were identified as independent risk factors for sepsis.
BackgroundData concerning the epidemiology of sepsis in critically ill post-craniotomy patients are scarce. This study aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of sepsis in this population. MethodsThis was a single-center prospective cohort study. Post-craniotomy patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were screened daily for the presence of infection and sepsis. ResultsOf the 900 included patients, 300 developed sepsis. The cumulative incidence of sepsis was 33.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 30.2-36.4%]. Advanced age, male, hypertension, trauma, postoperative intracranial complications, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) on the first postoperative day were independent risk factors of sepsis. Septic patients had higher hospital mortality (13.7 vs. 8.3%, P = 0.012), longer ICU length of stay (LOS) (14 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001), longer hospital LOS (31 vs. 19 days, P < 0.001), and higher total medical cost (CNY 138,394 vs. 75,918, P < 0.001) than patients without sepsis. ConclusionSepsis is a frequent complication in critically ill post-craniotomy patients. Advanced age, male, hypertension, trauma, postoperative intracranial complications, and lower GCS on the first postoperative day were independent risk factors of sepsis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据