Evidence Hub

Impending sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is associated with increased disease severity in SIC-negative patients: a secondary analysis of a prospective exploratory study

Thomas Schmoch, P. Möhnle, Christian Nusshag, M. Feisst, M. Weigand, Thorsten Brenner

Frontiers in Medicine, 2025

24 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Due to the intense crosstalk between the coagulation and immune systems, coagulation disorders are an integral part of the disturbed host response to infection that defines sepsis. These so-called sepsis-induced coagulopathies (SIC) are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, we still do not know enough about the prevalence and risk factors for SIC in different patient groups. In this study, we present a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study. The objectives of this secondary analysis were (1) to estimate the prevalence of SIC at the onset of sepsis, (2) to assess the prevalence of SIC throughout the intensive care unit (ICU) stay using a previously described modified SIC score, and (3) to evaluate the association between SIC and morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of SIC at the onset of sepsis was 15.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3–23.3%). A total of 24 additional patients who were SIC-negative at the onset of sepsis developed SIC according to the modified SIC score during their ICU stay. In total, we estimated that 39.0% (95% CI: 30.0–48.8%) of patients experienced relevant SIC during their ICU stay. Septic shock, a high lactate level, and a high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at the onset of sepsis in SIC-negative patients were associated with SIC development during the course of the disease. These findings need to be verified in larger cohorts and may represent a starting point for the development of a new…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 24 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