Serial Procalcitonin Predicts Mortality in Severe Sepsis Patients: Results From the Multicenter Procalcitonin MOnitoring SEpsis (MOSES) Study.
University of Basel1, New York Methodist Hospital2, Detroit Receiving Hospital3, University of Mississippi4, Stony Brook University5, Carolinas Medical Center6, Vanderbilt University7, Northwestern University8, Henry Ford Health System9, University of Pennsylvania10, Thermo Fisher Scientific11, Harvard University12
TL;DR: Results of this large, prospective multicenter U.S. study indicate that inability to decrease procalcitonin by more than 80% is a significant independent predictor of mortality and may aid in sepsis care.
Abstract: Objectives:To prospectively validate that the inability to decrease procalcitonin levels by more than 80% between baseline and day 4 is associated with increased 28-day all-cause mortality in a large sepsis patient population recruited across the United States.Design:Blinded, prospective multicenter
Citations
More filters
University Hospital of Basel1, University of Paris2, Aarhus University Hospital3, Hochschule Hannover4, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais5, Shanghai Jiao Tong University6, McMaster University7, University of Rochester8, University of Groningen9, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia10, Capital Medical University11, China-Japan Friendship Hospital12, Medisch Spectrum Twente13, Copenhagen University Hospital14
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review included individual patient data from 14 randomised controlled trials with a total of 4211 participants and found no increased risk for all-cause mortality or treatment failure when procalcitonin was used to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in participants with acute respiratory infections compared to control participants.
Abstract: Unnecessary antibiotic use significantly contributes to increasing bacterial resistance, medical costs and the risk of drug-related adverse events. The blood marker procalcitonin increases in bacterial infections and decreases when patients recover from the infection. Hence, procalcitonin may be used to support clinical decision making for the initiation and discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with a clinical suspicion of infection. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that such a strategy works, particularly in patients with an infection of the respiratory tract. However, most of these individual studies did not include enough patients to allow for a conclusive assessment about safety (low statistical power). Thus, the risk for mortality and severe complications associated with procalcitonin-guided decision making remained unclear.
This systematic review included individual patient data from 14 randomised controlled trials with a total of 4211 participants. When looking at these combined data, we found no increased risk for all-cause mortality or treatment failure when procalcitonin was used to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment in participants with acute respiratory infections compared to control participants. However, we found a consistent reduction of antibiotic use, mainly due to lower prescription rates in primary care and lower duration of antibiotic courses in emergency department and intensive care unit patients. This analysis is limited to adult patients with respiratory infections excluding patients who were immuno-compromised (i.e. HIV positive, those receiving immuno-suppressive therapies or chemotherapy). Most trials were conducted in Europe and China and similar studies in other countries including the United States are warranted.
518 citations
University of Basel1, University Hospital of Basel2, University of Paris3, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University4, Aarhus University Hospital5, Hochschule Hannover6, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais7, Shanghai Jiao Tong University8, Université Paris-Saclay9, University of Rochester10, University of Liège11, University of Groningen12, Utrecht University13, Cardiovascular Institute of the South14, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia15, China-Japan Friendship Hospital16, Monash University17, University of Copenhagen18, Copenhagen University Hospital19, Medisch Spectrum Twente20, Vanderbilt University Medical Center21, McMaster University22
TL;DR: Widespread implementation of procalcitonin protocols in patients with acute respiratory infections has the potential to improve antibiotic management with positive effects on clinical outcomes and on the current threat of increasing antibiotic multiresistance.
Abstract: Summary Background In February, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the blood infection marker procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic therapy in patients with acute respiratory infections. This meta-analysis of patient data from 26 randomised controlled trials was designed to assess safety of procalcitonin-guided treatment in patients with acute respiratory infections from different clinical settings. Methods Based on a prespecified Cochrane protocol, we did a systematic literature search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, and pooled individual patient data from trials in which patients with respiratory infections were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics based on procalcitonin concentrations (procalcitonin-guided group) or control. The coprimary endpoints were 30-day mortality and setting-specific treatment failure. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use, length of stay, and antibiotic side-effects. Findings We identified 990 records from the literature search, of which 71 articles were assessed for eligibility after exclusion of 919 records. We collected data on 6708 patients from 26 eligible trials in 12 countries. Mortality at 30 days was significantly lower in procalcitonin-guided patients than in control patients (286 [9%] deaths in 3336 procalcitonin-guided patients vs 336 [10%] in 3372 controls; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·70 to 0·99], p=0·037). This mortality benefit was similar across subgroups by setting and type of infection (p interactions >0·05), although mortality was very low in primary care and in patients with acute bronchitis. Procalcitonin guidance was also associated with a 2·4-day reduction in antibiotic exposure (5·7 vs 8·1 days [95% CI −2·71 to −2·15], p vs 22%, adjusted OR 0·68 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·82], p Interpretation Use of procalcitonin to guide antibiotic treatment in patients with acute respiratory infections reduces antibiotic exposure and side-effects, and improves survival. Widespread implementation of procalcitonin protocols in patients with acute respiratory infections thus has the potential to improve antibiotic management with positive effects on clinical outcomes and on the current threat of increasing antibiotic multiresistance. Funding National Institute for Health Research.
304 citations
TL;DR: The literature review reaffirms the continued common occurrence of septic shock and estimates a high mortality of around 38%.
Abstract: Septic shock is the most severe form of sepsis, in which profound underlying abnormalities in circulatory and cellular/metabolic parameters lead to substantially increased mortality. A clear understanding and up-to-date assessment of the burden and epidemiology of septic shock are needed to help guide resource allocation and thus ultimately improve patient care. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore to provide a recent evaluation of the frequency of septic shock in intensive care units (ICUs) and associated ICU and hospital mortality. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2005 to 20 February 2018 for observational studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of septic shock. Four reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled frequency of septic shock diagnosed at admission and during the ICU stay and to estimate septic shock mortality in the ICU, hospital, and at 28 or 30 days. The literature search identified 6291 records of which 71 articles met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of septic shock was estimated at 10.4% (95% CI 5.9 to 16.1%) in studies reporting values for patients diagnosed at ICU admission and at 8.3% (95% CI 6.1 to 10.7%) in studies reporting values for patients diagnosed at any time during the ICU stay. ICU mortality was 37.3% (95% CI 31.5 to 43.5%), hospital mortality 39.0% (95% CI 34.4 to 43.9%), and 28-/30-day mortality 36.7% (95% CI 32.8 to 40.8%). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Our literature review reaffirms the continued common occurrence of septic shock and estimates a high mortality of around 38%. The high level of heterogeneity observed in this review may be driven by variability in defining and applying the diagnostic criteria, as well as differences in treatment and care across settings and countries.
239 citations
Cites methods from "Serial Procalcitonin Predicts Morta..."
...…Hospital (NR) Not reported Not reported Data collected retrospectively from a multicenter national database Hospitalized patients with septic shock At admission Hospital mortality May: NR/118808 (39.6) Hospital mortality July: NR /119798 (38.6) USA Schuetz 2017 [91] 2011 – 2014 ED/ICU (13) Not…...
[...]
01 Jan 2005
204 citations
TL;DR: Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in ICU patients with infection and sepsis patients results in improved survival and lower antibiotic treatment duration.
Abstract: The clinical utility of serum procalcitonin levels in guiding antibiotic treatment decisions in patients with sepsis remains unclear. This patient-level meta-analysis based on 11 randomized trials investigates the impact of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy on mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with infection, both overall and stratified according to sepsis definition, severity, and type of infection. For this meta-analysis focusing on procalcitonin-guided antibiotic management in critically ill patients with sepsis of any type, in February 2018 we updated the database of a previous individual patient data meta-analysis which was limited to patients with respiratory infections only. We used individual patient data from 11 trials that randomly assigned patients to receive antibiotics based on procalcitonin levels (the “procalcitonin-guided” group) or the current standard of care (the “controls”). The primary endpoint was mortality within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were duration of antibiotic treatment and length of stay. Mortality in the 2252 procalcitonin-guided patients was significantly lower compared with the 2230 control group patients (21.1% vs 23.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 0.99; p = 0.03). These effects on mortality persisted in a subgroup of patients meeting the sepsis 3 definition and based on the severity of sepsis (assessed on the basis of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, occurrence of septic shock or renal failure, and need for vasopressor or ventilatory support) and on the type of infection (respiratory, urinary tract, abdominal, skin, or central nervous system), with interaction for each analysis being > 0.05. Procalcitonin guidance also facilitated earlier discontinuation of antibiotics, with a reduction in treatment duration (9.3 vs 10.4 days; adjusted coefficient −1.19 days, 95% CI −1.73 to −0.66; p < 0.001). Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in ICU patients with infection and sepsis patients results in improved survival and lower antibiotic treatment duration.
149 citations
Cites background or methods from "Serial Procalcitonin Predicts Morta..."
...Multiple studies have demonstrated that PCT levels increase in response to bacterial infection and decrease during recovery [4, 5]....
[...]
...In this context, serum procalcitonin (PCT) has emerged as a sensitive biomarker that provides prognostic information in patients with infections, and thus may improve sepsis management [4, 5]....
[...]
...The MOSES study investigating PCT kinetics over 72 h in several US emergency departments validated the prognostic potential of PCT independent of other prognostic scores [4]....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study, resulting in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.
Abstract: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
15,454 citations
TL;DR: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study, resulting in a checklist of 22 items that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.
Abstract: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
13,974 citations
TL;DR: An American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference was held in Northbrook in August 1991 with the goal of agreeing on a set of definitions that could be applied to patients with sepsis and its sequelae as mentioned in this paper.
12,583 citations
TL;DR: The ESICM developed a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortali ty in the critically ill patient. Emerging in the 1970s, the concept of MOF was linked to modern developments in intensive care medicine [1]. Although an uncontrolled infection can lead to MOF [2], such a phenomenon is not always found. A number of mediators and the persistence of tissue hypoxia have been incriminated in the development of MOF [3]. The gut has been cited as a possible \"moto r \" of MOF [4]. Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of MOF remains limited. Furthermore, the development of new therapeutic interventions aiming at a reduction of the incidence and severity of organ failure calls for a better definition of the severity of organ dysfunction/failure to quantify the severity of illness. Accordingly, it is important to set some simple but objective criteria to define the degree of organ dysfunction/failure. The evolution of our knowledge of organ dysfunction/failure led us to establish several principles: 1. Organ dysfunction/failure is a process rather than an event. Hence, it should be seen as a continuum and should not be described simply as \"present\" or \"absent~' Hence, the assessment should be based on a scale. 2. The time factor is fundamental for several reasons: (a) Development and similarly resolution of organ failure may take some time. Patients dying early may not have time to develop organ dysfunction/failure. (b) The time course of organ dysfunction/failure can be mult imodal during a complex clinical course, what is sometimes referred to as a \"multiple-hit\" scenario. (c) Time evaluation allows a greater understanding of the disease process as a natural process or under the influence of therapeutic interventions. The collection of data on a daily basis seems adequate. 3. The evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure should be based on a limited number of simple but objective variables that are easily and routinely measured in every institution. The collection of this information should not impose any intervention beyond what is routinely performed in every ICU. The variables used should as much as possible be independent of therapy, since therapeutic management may vary from one institution to another and even from one patient to another (Table 1). Until recently, none of the existing systems describing organ failure met these criteria, since they were based on categorial definitions or described organ failure as present or absent [5-7] . The ESICM organized a consensus meeting in Paris in October 1994 to create a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients (Fig. 1). There are two major applications of such a SOFA score: 1. To improve our Understanding of the natural history of organ dysfunction/failure and the interrelation between the failure of the various organs.
8,538 citations
Brown University1, St George's Hospital2, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island3, Emory University Hospital4, Hebrew University of Jerusalem5, Denver Health Medical Center6, McMaster University7, Barnes-Jewish Hospital8, University of Chicago9, California Pacific Medical Center10, University of Jena11, Rush University Medical Center12, University of Pittsburgh13, University of Pennsylvania14, Federal University of São Paulo15, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre16, Royal Perth Hospital17, St Thomas' Hospital18
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened in 2008 to provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock".
Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao
2/Fio
2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao
2/Fi
o
2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
6,283 citations