4.5 Article

Previously healthy adults among septic patients: Population-level epidemiology and outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154427

关键词

Comorbidity; Intensive care unit; Mortality; sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously healthy septic patients have lower short-term mortality compared to those with comorbid conditions. This finding is consistent in both community-onset and hospital-onset sepsis.
Purpose: Previously healthy adults with community-onset sepsis were recently reported to have, counterintuitively, higher short-term mortality than those with comorbid conditions. However, the population-level generalizability of this finding and its applicability to all hospitalized septic patients are unclear.Methods: We used a statewide dataset to identify hospitalizations aged >= 18 years with a diagnosis of sepsis in Texas during 2018-2019. Comorbidities were defined as those included in the Charlson Comorbidity Index and other prevalent conditions associated with mortality. Hierarchical models were used to estimate the association of comorbid state with short-term mortality (defined as in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice), overall and in community-onset and hospital-onset sepsis.Results: Among 120,371 sepsis hospitalizations, 6611 (5.5%) were previously healthy and 105,455 (87.6%) had community-onset sepsis. Short-term mortality among the previously healthy and those with comorbidities was 11.7% vs 28.2% overall, 11.0% vs 25.2% in community-onset sepsis, and 22.0% vs 48.7% in hospital-onset sepsis, respectively. On adjusted analysis, being previously healthy remained associated with lower short-term mortality overall (adjusted odds ratio 0.62 [95% CI 0.57-0.69]), with findings consistent with the primary analysis in community-onset sepsis, hospital-onset sepsis.Conclusions: Previously healthy septic patients had lower short-term mortality compared to those with comorbid conditions.

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