Cited by 358Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentAcute Kidney Injury ResearchAbdominal Surgery and Complications

Early changes in organ function predict eventual survival in severe sepsis*

Levy, Mitchell M., Macias, William L., Vincent, Jean-Louis, Russell, James A., Silva, Eliezer, Trzaskoma, Benjamin, Williams, Mark D.·2005·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective: Early identification and treatment of severe sepsis can significantly reduce mortality rate. We hypothesized that a risk prediction model based on early (baseline to day 1 of study) response to standard care should be significantly related to 28-day survival. Design: Analysis of organ dysfunction data from two placebo-controlled severe sepsis trials (PROWESS and secretory phospholipase A2 inhibitor trials). Setting: Research laboratory. Patients: The placebo arms of two randomized, double-blind sepsis trials were combined (n = 1036). These patients met criteria for severe sepsis and received supportive standard intensive care and fluid resuscitation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated daily using the most aberrant physiologic or laboratory variables. Baseline and postbaseline SOFA scores categorized as improved, unchanged, or worsened were used in regression analyses correlating organ dysfunction changes with 28-day mortality. Improvement in cardiovascular (p = .0010), renal (p < .0001), or respiratory (p = .0469) function from baseline to day 1 was significantly related to survival. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) associated with improved vs. worsened respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal function before start of day 1 were 0.56 (0.35–0.91), 0.33 (0.18–0.59), and 0.30 (0.17–0.52), respectively. Continued improvement in cardiovascular function before start of day 2 and start of day 3 was associated with further improvement in survival (p <. 0001), with odds ratios of 0.15 (0.06–0.39) and 0.11 (0.04–0.31) for patients who improved compared with those who worsened. No other organ system was retained in the model, and improvement beyond day 1 in any other organ function did not add to the model's predictive power. Conclusions: These analyses suggest that outcomes for patients with severe sepsis are closely related to early (baseline to day 1 here) improvement, or lack thereof, in organ function. Also, clinical improvement on subsequent days may have little additional impact on the likelihood of survival. LEARNING OBJECTIVES On completion of this article, the reader should be able to: Explain organ function abnormalities associated with poor patient outcomes from sepsis. Describe the significant time periods to predict outcome. Use this information in a clinical setting. Dr. Levy has disclosed that he is/was the recipient of direct grant/research funds from Eli Lilly & Co., Chiron, Moguel, Phillips, and Edwards; is a consultant for Chiron and Phillips; and is/was on the speakers bureau of Eli Lilly & Co., Edwards, Phillips, and Ortho. Dr. Macias has disclosed that he is/was an employee and a current stock shareholder of Eli Lilly & Co. Dr. Vincent has disclosed that he is/was the recipient of direct grant/research funds from, a consultant for, and on the speakers bureau of Eli Lilly & Co. Mr. Trzaskoma and Dr. Williams have disclosed that they were/are employees and stock shareholders of Eli Lilly & Co. Dr. Silva has disclosed that he is/was a consultant for and was on the speakers bureau of Eli Lilly & Co. Dr. Russell has disclosed that he has no financial relationships with or interests in any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity. Wolters Kluwer Health has identified and resolved all faculty conflicts of interests regarding this educational activity. Visit the Critical Care Medicine Web site (www.ccmjournal.org) for information on obtaining continuing medical education credit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000182798.39709.84

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, M. M., Macias, W. L., Vincent, J.-L., Russell, J. A., Silva, E., Trzaskoma, B., & Williams, M. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna (AT)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2005-10
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
2194-2201
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973747304
Cited by
358
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 31
FWCI
22.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
Keywords
severe sepsis, 28-day survival, organ dysfunction, risk prediction model, cardiovascular function, renal function, respiratory function, fluid resuscitation, intensive care, mortality prediction, PROWESS trial
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cardiovascular System, Female, Hematopoietic System, Humans, Kidney, Liver, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Respiratory System, Survival Rate, Logistic Models, Sepsis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review