Cargando…

New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research

OBJECTIVES: The Sepsis-3 definition states the clinical criteria for sepsis but lacks clear definitions of the underlying infection. To address the lack of applicable definitions of infection for sepsis research, we propose new criteria, termed the Linder-Mellhammar criteria of infection (LMCI). The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mellhammar, Lisa, Elén, Sixten, Ehrhard, Simone, Bouma, Hjalmar, Ninck, Lorenz, Muntjewerff, Eva, Wünsch, Daniel, Bloos, Frank, Malmström, Erik, Linder, Adam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9116943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000697
_version_ 1784710219773771776
author Mellhammar, Lisa
Elén, Sixten
Ehrhard, Simone
Bouma, Hjalmar
Ninck, Lorenz
Muntjewerff, Eva
Wünsch, Daniel
Bloos, Frank
Malmström, Erik
Linder, Adam
author_facet Mellhammar, Lisa
Elén, Sixten
Ehrhard, Simone
Bouma, Hjalmar
Ninck, Lorenz
Muntjewerff, Eva
Wünsch, Daniel
Bloos, Frank
Malmström, Erik
Linder, Adam
author_sort Mellhammar, Lisa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The Sepsis-3 definition states the clinical criteria for sepsis but lacks clear definitions of the underlying infection. To address the lack of applicable definitions of infection for sepsis research, we propose new criteria, termed the Linder-Mellhammar criteria of infection (LMCI). The aim of this study was to validate these new infection criteria. DESIGN: A multicenter cohort study of patients with suspected infection who were admitted to emergency departments or ICUs. Data were collected from medical records and from study investigators. SETTING: Four academic hospitals in Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: A total of 934 adult patients with suspected infection or suspected sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Agreement of infection site classification was measured using the LMCI with Cohen κ coefficient, compared with the Calandra and Cohen definitions of infection and diagnosis on hospital discharge as references. In one of the cohorts, comparisons were also made to adjudications by an expert panel. A subset of patients was assessed for interobserver agreement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The precision of the LMCI varied according to the applied reference. LMCI performed better than the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59–0.65] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39–0.47], respectively) and the diagnosis on hospital discharge (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53–0.61] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39–0.47], respectively). The interobserver agreement for the LMCI was evaluated in 91 patients, with agreement in 77%, κ = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.85). When tested with adjudication as the gold standard, the LMCI still outperformed the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60–0.70] vs κ = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.24–0.33], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The LMCI is useful criterion of infection that is intended for sepsis research, in and outside of the ICU. Useful criteria for infection have the potential to facilitate more comparable sepsis research and exclude sepsis mimics from clinical studies, thus improving and simplifying sepsis research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9116943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91169432022-05-25 New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research Mellhammar, Lisa Elén, Sixten Ehrhard, Simone Bouma, Hjalmar Ninck, Lorenz Muntjewerff, Eva Wünsch, Daniel Bloos, Frank Malmström, Erik Linder, Adam Crit Care Explor Commentary OBJECTIVES: The Sepsis-3 definition states the clinical criteria for sepsis but lacks clear definitions of the underlying infection. To address the lack of applicable definitions of infection for sepsis research, we propose new criteria, termed the Linder-Mellhammar criteria of infection (LMCI). The aim of this study was to validate these new infection criteria. DESIGN: A multicenter cohort study of patients with suspected infection who were admitted to emergency departments or ICUs. Data were collected from medical records and from study investigators. SETTING: Four academic hospitals in Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: A total of 934 adult patients with suspected infection or suspected sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Agreement of infection site classification was measured using the LMCI with Cohen κ coefficient, compared with the Calandra and Cohen definitions of infection and diagnosis on hospital discharge as references. In one of the cohorts, comparisons were also made to adjudications by an expert panel. A subset of patients was assessed for interobserver agreement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The precision of the LMCI varied according to the applied reference. LMCI performed better than the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59–0.65] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39–0.47], respectively) and the diagnosis on hospital discharge (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53–0.61] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39–0.47], respectively). The interobserver agreement for the LMCI was evaluated in 91 patients, with agreement in 77%, κ = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.85). When tested with adjudication as the gold standard, the LMCI still outperformed the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60–0.70] vs κ = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.24–0.33], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The LMCI is useful criterion of infection that is intended for sepsis research, in and outside of the ICU. Useful criteria for infection have the potential to facilitate more comparable sepsis research and exclude sepsis mimics from clinical studies, thus improving and simplifying sepsis research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9116943/ /pubmed/35620771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000697 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Commentary
Mellhammar, Lisa
Elén, Sixten
Ehrhard, Simone
Bouma, Hjalmar
Ninck, Lorenz
Muntjewerff, Eva
Wünsch, Daniel
Bloos, Frank
Malmström, Erik
Linder, Adam
New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title_full New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title_fullStr New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title_full_unstemmed New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title_short New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research
title_sort new, useful criteria for assessing the evidence of infection in sepsis research
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9116943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000697
work_keys_str_mv AT mellhammarlisa newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT elensixten newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT ehrhardsimone newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT boumahjalmar newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT nincklorenz newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT muntjewerffeva newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT wunschdaniel newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT bloosfrank newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT malmstromerik newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch
AT linderadam newusefulcriteriaforassessingtheevidenceofinfectioninsepsisresearch