Evidence Hub

Six subphenotypes in septic shock: Latent class analysis of the PROWESS Shock study

B. Gårdlund, N. Dmitrieva, C. Pieper, S. Finfer, J. Marshall, B. Thompson

Journal of critical care, 2018

1,696 participants · 75 citations

Abstract

Purpose: Septic shock is a highly heterogeneous condition which is part of the challenge in its diagnosis and treatment. In this study we aim to identify clinically relevant subphenotypes of septic shock using a novel statistic al approach. Methods: Baseline patient data from a large global clinical trial of septic shock (n = 1696) was analysed using latent class analysis (LCA). This approach allowed investigators to identify subgroups in a heterogeneous population by estimating a categorical latent variable that detects relatively homogeneous subgroups within a complex phenomenon. Results: LCA identified six different, clinically meaningful subphenotypes of septic shock each with a typical profile: (1) “Uncomplicated Septic Shock, (2) “Pneumonia with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)”, (3) “Postoperative Abdominal”, (4) “Severe Septic Shock”, (5): “Pneumonia with ARDS and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS)”, (6) “Late Septic Shock”. The 6‐class solution showed high entropy approaching 1 (i.e., 0.92), indicating there was excellent separation between estimated classes. Conclusions: LCA appears to be an applicable statistical tool in analysing a heterogenous clinical cohort of septic shock. The results may lead to a better understanding of septic shock complexity and form a basis for considering targeted therapies and selecting patients for future clinical trials. HighlightsLatent class analysis (LCA) can be used to identify subphenotypes within a complex…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,696 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free