Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31288865›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019

Health inequities in the diagnosis and outcome of sepsis in Argentina: a prospective cohort study.

Elisa Estenssoro, Cecilia I Loudet, Vanina S K Edul, Javier Osatnik, Fernando G Ríos, Daniela N Vásquez, Mario O Pozo, Bernardo Lattanzio, Fernando Pálizas, Francisco Klein and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Be-SNAP: the Belgian Sepsis National Action Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Elisa EstenssoroServicio de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Interzonal de Agudos San Martin de La Plata, Calle 42 No.577, 1900, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. estenssoro.elisa@gmail.com.
Cecilia I LoudetServicio de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Interzonal de Agudos San Martin de La Plata, Calle 42 No.577, 1900, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vanina S K EdulHospital Juan A Fernández, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Javier OsatnikHospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fernando G RíosHospital Alejandro Posadas, El Palomar, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Daniela N VásquezSanatorio Anchorena, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mario O PozoClínica Bazterrica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bernardo LattanzioClínica Santa Isabel, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fernando PálizasClínica Bazterrica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Francisco KleinHospital Universitario Fundación Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Damián PieznyHospital Alejandro Posadas, El Palomar, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paolo N Rubatto BirriSanatorio Otamendi y Miroli, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Graciela TuhayHospital Universitario Fundación Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Anatilde DíazHospital Misericordia, Córdoba, Argentina.
Analía SantamaríaSanatorio de la Trinidad Mitre, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Graciela ZakalikHospital Lagomaggiore, Mendoza, Argentina.
Arnaldo DubinSanatorio Otamendi y Miroli, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
investigators of the SATISEPSIS Group

Funding

Ministry of Health, Argentina Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocioeconomic variables impact health outcomes but have rarely been evaluated in critical illness. Low- and middle-income countries bear the highest burden of sepsis and also have significant health inequities. In Argentina, public hospitals serve the poorest segment of the population, while private institutions serve patients with health coverage. Our objective was to analyze differences in mortality between public and private hospitals, using Sepsis-3 definitions.

methodsThis is a multicenter, prospective cohort study including patients with sepsis admitted to 49 Argentine ICUs lasting 3 months, beginning on July 1, 2016. Epidemiological, clinical, and socioeconomic status variables and hospital characteristics were compared between patients admitted to both types of institutions.

resultsOf the 809 patients included, 367 (45%) and 442 (55%) were admitted to public and private hospitals, respectively. Those in public institutions were younger (56 ± 18 vs. 64 ± 18; p < 0.01), with more comorbidities (Charlson score 2 [0-4] vs. 1 [0-3]; p < 0.01), fewer education years (7 [7-12] vs. 12 [10-16]; p < 0.01), more frequently unemployed/informally employed (30% vs. 7%; p < 0.01), had similar previous self-rated health status (70 [50-90] vs. 70 [50-90] points; p = 0.30), longer pre-admission symptoms (48 [24-96] vs. 24 [12-48] h; p < 0.01), had been previously evaluated more frequently in any healthcare venue (28 vs. 20%; p < 0.01), and had higher APACHE II, SOFA, lactate levels, and mechanical ventilation utilization. ICU admission as septic shock was more frequent in patients admitted to public hospitals (47 vs. 35%; p < 0.01), as were infections caused by multiresistant microorganisms. Sepsis management in the ICU showed no differences. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher in public hospitals (42% vs. 24%; p < 0.01) as was hospital mortality (47% vs. 30%; p < 0.01). Admission to a public hospital was an independent predictor of mortality together with comorbidities, lactate, SOFA, and mechanical ventilation; in an alternative prediction model, it acted as a correlate of pre-hospital symptom duration and infections caused by multiresistant microorganisms.

conclusionsPatients in public hospitals belonged to a socially disadvantaged group and were sicker at admission, had septic shock more frequently, and had higher mortality. Unawareness of disease severity and delays in the health system might be associated with late admission. This marked difference in outcome between patients served by public and private institutions constitutes a state of health inequity.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAPACHEArgentinaCohort StudiesFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesSepsisHealth inequitySepsis-3Sepsis awarenessSeptic shockSESSocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID31288865
PMCPMC6615149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.