Septic shock: An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units

Jerilyn S. Lundberg, Trish M. Perl, Todd Wiblin, Michele D. Costigan, Jeffrey Dawson, Mary D. Nettleman, Richard P. Wenzel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To determine if early interventions for septic shock were associated with reduced mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and general wards. Patients: Forty-one consecutive patients prospectively identified with positive blood cultures and septic shock. Although all patients were eventually treated in an ICU, ten (24%) patients were on a general ward at the onset of septic shock, and 31 (76%) were in an ICU setting. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Over a period of 9 mos, a cohort of 41 patients who had positive blood cultures and septic shock was prospectively identified. The 28-day crude mortality was 46% (19 deaths). We compared the management of septic shock and outcome for patients on a general ward vs. those patients in an ICU setting. Of the ten patients on the ward at time of shock onset (median age 55.5 yrs; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score of 18.5), seven (70%) died. In contrast, the 31 patients receiving intensive care when shock developed were older and more ill (median age 66 yrs; median APACHE II 24), yet had a mortality of 39% (12 deaths). The odds ratio (OR) for death for ward patients compared with ICU patients was 3.57 (p = .17). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, two risk factors for mortality were important: APACHE II score (p = .015) and ward status (p = .06). Candida species in the bloodstream is known to have a high attributable mortality. When type of bloodstream pathogen (Candida species vs. bacteria) was added to the model, APACHE II (OR 2.64 for 10-unit increase) remained significant (p = .014), but ward status (OR 3.97) became statistically nonsignificant (p = .222). The patients who were on a general ward when their shock developed had a median delay of 67 mins before transfer to an ICU setting. Ward patients received an intravenous fluid bolus after a median delay of 27 mins, whereas those in the ICU who received a fluid bolus did so after a median of 15 mins (p = .48). Ward patients also had a median delay of 310 mins to receive inotropic support compared with a median 22.5 mins (p = .037) for the patients in an ICU setting when shock started. Conclusions: The data suggest that for patients with septic shock on wards, there were clinically important delays in transfer of patients to the ICU, receipt of intravenous fluid boluses, and receipt of inotropic agents. However, the most powerful predictors of mortality were APACHE II scores and bloodstream infection with Candida species.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1020-1024
Number of pages5
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Septic Shock
Intensive Care Units
APACHE
Patients' Rooms
Mortality
Shock
Candida
Odds Ratio
Patient Transfer
Critical Care
Age of Onset

Keywords

  • Bloodstream infection
  • Critical illness
  • Infectious diseases
  • Inotropic support
  • Intensive care
  • Mortality
  • Risk factors
  • Septic shock

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Lundberg, J. S., Perl, T. M., Wiblin, T., Costigan, M. D., Dawson, J., Nettleman, M. D., & Wenzel, R. P. (1998). Septic shock: An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units. Critical Care Medicine, 26(6), 1020-1024. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199806000-00019

Septic shock : An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units. / Lundberg, Jerilyn S.; Perl, Trish M.; Wiblin, Todd; Costigan, Michele D.; Dawson, Jeffrey; Nettleman, Mary D.; Wenzel, Richard P.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1998, p. 1020-1024.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lundberg, JS, Perl, TM, Wiblin, T, Costigan, MD, Dawson, J, Nettleman, MD & Wenzel, RP 1998, 'Septic shock: An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units', Critical Care Medicine, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1020-1024. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199806000-00019
Lundberg, Jerilyn S. ; Perl, Trish M. ; Wiblin, Todd ; Costigan, Michele D. ; Dawson, Jeffrey ; Nettleman, Mary D. ; Wenzel, Richard P. / Septic shock : An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units. In: Critical Care Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 26, No. 6. pp. 1020-1024.
@article{14286823490c4abdb064d274a90216a5,
title = "Septic shock: An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units",
abstract = "Objective: To determine if early interventions for septic shock were associated with reduced mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and general wards. Patients: Forty-one consecutive patients prospectively identified with positive blood cultures and septic shock. Although all patients were eventually treated in an ICU, ten (24{\%}) patients were on a general ward at the onset of septic shock, and 31 (76{\%}) were in an ICU setting. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Over a period of 9 mos, a cohort of 41 patients who had positive blood cultures and septic shock was prospectively identified. The 28-day crude mortality was 46{\%} (19 deaths). We compared the management of septic shock and outcome for patients on a general ward vs. those patients in an ICU setting. Of the ten patients on the ward at time of shock onset (median age 55.5 yrs; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score of 18.5), seven (70{\%}) died. In contrast, the 31 patients receiving intensive care when shock developed were older and more ill (median age 66 yrs; median APACHE II 24), yet had a mortality of 39{\%} (12 deaths). The odds ratio (OR) for death for ward patients compared with ICU patients was 3.57 (p = .17). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, two risk factors for mortality were important: APACHE II score (p = .015) and ward status (p = .06). Candida species in the bloodstream is known to have a high attributable mortality. When type of bloodstream pathogen (Candida species vs. bacteria) was added to the model, APACHE II (OR 2.64 for 10-unit increase) remained significant (p = .014), but ward status (OR 3.97) became statistically nonsignificant (p = .222). The patients who were on a general ward when their shock developed had a median delay of 67 mins before transfer to an ICU setting. Ward patients received an intravenous fluid bolus after a median delay of 27 mins, whereas those in the ICU who received a fluid bolus did so after a median of 15 mins (p = .48). Ward patients also had a median delay of 310 mins to receive inotropic support compared with a median 22.5 mins (p = .037) for the patients in an ICU setting when shock started. Conclusions: The data suggest that for patients with septic shock on wards, there were clinically important delays in transfer of patients to the ICU, receipt of intravenous fluid boluses, and receipt of inotropic agents. However, the most powerful predictors of mortality were APACHE II scores and bloodstream infection with Candida species.",
keywords = "Bloodstream infection, Critical illness, Infectious diseases, Inotropic support, Intensive care, Mortality, Risk factors, Septic shock",
author = "Lundberg, {Jerilyn S.} and Perl, {Trish M.} and Todd Wiblin and Costigan, {Michele D.} and Jeffrey Dawson and Nettleman, {Mary D.} and Wenzel, {Richard P.}",
year = "1998",
doi = "10.1097/00003246-199806000-00019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "1020--1024",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Septic shock

T2 - An analysis of outcomes for patients with onset on hospital wards versus intensive care units

AU - Lundberg, Jerilyn S.

AU - Perl, Trish M.

AU - Wiblin, Todd

AU - Costigan, Michele D.

AU - Dawson, Jeffrey

AU - Nettleman, Mary D.

AU - Wenzel, Richard P.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Objective: To determine if early interventions for septic shock were associated with reduced mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and general wards. Patients: Forty-one consecutive patients prospectively identified with positive blood cultures and septic shock. Although all patients were eventually treated in an ICU, ten (24%) patients were on a general ward at the onset of septic shock, and 31 (76%) were in an ICU setting. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Over a period of 9 mos, a cohort of 41 patients who had positive blood cultures and septic shock was prospectively identified. The 28-day crude mortality was 46% (19 deaths). We compared the management of septic shock and outcome for patients on a general ward vs. those patients in an ICU setting. Of the ten patients on the ward at time of shock onset (median age 55.5 yrs; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score of 18.5), seven (70%) died. In contrast, the 31 patients receiving intensive care when shock developed were older and more ill (median age 66 yrs; median APACHE II 24), yet had a mortality of 39% (12 deaths). The odds ratio (OR) for death for ward patients compared with ICU patients was 3.57 (p = .17). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, two risk factors for mortality were important: APACHE II score (p = .015) and ward status (p = .06). Candida species in the bloodstream is known to have a high attributable mortality. When type of bloodstream pathogen (Candida species vs. bacteria) was added to the model, APACHE II (OR 2.64 for 10-unit increase) remained significant (p = .014), but ward status (OR 3.97) became statistically nonsignificant (p = .222). The patients who were on a general ward when their shock developed had a median delay of 67 mins before transfer to an ICU setting. Ward patients received an intravenous fluid bolus after a median delay of 27 mins, whereas those in the ICU who received a fluid bolus did so after a median of 15 mins (p = .48). Ward patients also had a median delay of 310 mins to receive inotropic support compared with a median 22.5 mins (p = .037) for the patients in an ICU setting when shock started. Conclusions: The data suggest that for patients with septic shock on wards, there were clinically important delays in transfer of patients to the ICU, receipt of intravenous fluid boluses, and receipt of inotropic agents. However, the most powerful predictors of mortality were APACHE II scores and bloodstream infection with Candida species.

AB - Objective: To determine if early interventions for septic shock were associated with reduced mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and general wards. Patients: Forty-one consecutive patients prospectively identified with positive blood cultures and septic shock. Although all patients were eventually treated in an ICU, ten (24%) patients were on a general ward at the onset of septic shock, and 31 (76%) were in an ICU setting. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Over a period of 9 mos, a cohort of 41 patients who had positive blood cultures and septic shock was prospectively identified. The 28-day crude mortality was 46% (19 deaths). We compared the management of septic shock and outcome for patients on a general ward vs. those patients in an ICU setting. Of the ten patients on the ward at time of shock onset (median age 55.5 yrs; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score of 18.5), seven (70%) died. In contrast, the 31 patients receiving intensive care when shock developed were older and more ill (median age 66 yrs; median APACHE II 24), yet had a mortality of 39% (12 deaths). The odds ratio (OR) for death for ward patients compared with ICU patients was 3.57 (p = .17). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, two risk factors for mortality were important: APACHE II score (p = .015) and ward status (p = .06). Candida species in the bloodstream is known to have a high attributable mortality. When type of bloodstream pathogen (Candida species vs. bacteria) was added to the model, APACHE II (OR 2.64 for 10-unit increase) remained significant (p = .014), but ward status (OR 3.97) became statistically nonsignificant (p = .222). The patients who were on a general ward when their shock developed had a median delay of 67 mins before transfer to an ICU setting. Ward patients received an intravenous fluid bolus after a median delay of 27 mins, whereas those in the ICU who received a fluid bolus did so after a median of 15 mins (p = .48). Ward patients also had a median delay of 310 mins to receive inotropic support compared with a median 22.5 mins (p = .037) for the patients in an ICU setting when shock started. Conclusions: The data suggest that for patients with septic shock on wards, there were clinically important delays in transfer of patients to the ICU, receipt of intravenous fluid boluses, and receipt of inotropic agents. However, the most powerful predictors of mortality were APACHE II scores and bloodstream infection with Candida species.

KW - Bloodstream infection

KW - Critical illness

KW - Infectious diseases

KW - Inotropic support

KW - Intensive care

KW - Mortality

KW - Risk factors

KW - Septic shock

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031746746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031746746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00003246-199806000-00019

DO - 10.1097/00003246-199806000-00019

M3 - Article

C2 - 9635649

AN - SCOPUS:0031746746

VL - 26

SP - 1020

EP - 1024

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 6

ER -