Evidence Hub

Clinical Subtype Trajectories in Sepsis Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Secondary Analysis of an Observational Study

M. A. Slim, R. V. van Amstel, Marcella C. A. Müller, O. Cremer, A. P. J. Vlaar, T. van der Poll, W. J. Wiersinga, Christopher W. Seymour et al.

Critical Care Explorations, 2024

3,296 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is an evolving process and proposed subtypes may change over time. We hypothesized that previously established sepsis subtypes are dynamic, prognostic of outcome, and trajectories are associated with host response alterations. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of two observational critically ill sepsis cohorts: the Molecular diAgnosis and Risk stratification of Sepsis (MARS) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV). SETTING: ICUs in the Netherlands and United States between 2011–2014 and 2008–2019, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Patient admission fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria upon ICU admission adjudicated to one of four previously identified subtypes, comprising 2,416 admissions in MARS and 10,745 in MIMIC-IV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Subtype stability and the changes per subtype on days 2, 4 and 7 of ICU admission were assessed. Next, the associated between change in clinical subtype and outcome and host response alterations. RESULTS: In MARS, upon ICU admission, 6% (n = 150) of the patient admissions were α-type, 3% (n = 70) β-type, 55% (n = 1317) γ-type, and 36% (n = 879) δ-type; in MIMIC-IV, this was α = 22% (n = 2398), β = 22% (n = 2365), γ = 31% (n = 3296), and δ = 25% (2686). Overall, prevalence of subtypes was stable over days 2, 4, and 7. However, 28–56% (MARS/MIMIC-IV) changed from α on ICU admission to any of the other subtypes on day 2, 33–71% from β, 57–32% from γ, and 50–48% from δ. On day 4, overall subtype…

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: 3,296 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