4.5 Article

Epidemiology of Community-Acquired Sepsis: Data from an E-Sepsis Registry of a Tertiary Care Center in South India

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11111226

关键词

sepsis; community-acquired sepsis; registry; surviving sepsis campaign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to characterize community-acquired sepsis patients and identify predictors of mortality, based on regional microbial etiology and clinical outcomes, to tailor institutional sepsis treatment protocols.
The study aims to characterize community-acquired sepsis patients admitted to our 1300-bedded tertiary care hospital in South India from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline-compliant e-sepsis registry stratified by focus of infection. The prospective observational study recruited 1009 adult sepsis patients presenting to the emergency department at the center based on Sepsis-2 criteria for a period of three years. Of the patients, 41% were between 61 and 80 years with a mean age of 57.37 +/- 13.5%. A total of 13.5% (136) was under septic shock and in-hospital mortality for the study cohort was 25%. The 3 h and 6 h bundle compliance rates observed were 37% and 49%, respectively, without significant survival benefits. Predictors of mortality among patients with bloodstream infections were septic shock (p = 0.01, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.23-4.79) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.008, OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.009-1.066). The presence of Acinetobacter (p = 0.005, OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.37-12.09), Candida non-albicans (p = 0.001, OR16.02, 95% CI 3.0-84.2) and septic shock (p = 0.071, OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.97-6.6) were significant predictors of mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The registry has proven to be a key data source detailing regional microbial etiology and clinical outcomes of adult sepsis patients, enabling comprehensive evaluation of regional community-acquired sepsis to tailor institutional sepsis treatment protocols.

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

4.5
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