ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Effectiveness of sepsis bundle application and outcomes predictors to cirrhotic patients with septic shock.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Risk Factors for Mortality among Septic Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using the National Trauma Data Bank.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
- Comparison of General and Liver-Specific Prognostic Scores in Their Ability to Predict Mortality in Cirrhotic Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCirrhotic patients with septic shock have a poorer prognosis compared with the general population. Our study aimed to investigate the survival benefit of the implementation of hour-1 bundle proposed by Surviving Sepsis Campaign, and to analyze the predictors associated with short-term mortality of these patients.
methodsA single-center, retrospective case-control study was conducted among adult patients who visited the emergency department between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. All patients with a diagnosis of liver cirrhosis and septic shock were enrolled. Their baseline characteristics, laboratory results, source of sepsis, and sepsis bundle management were recorded. We further divided the patients into survivor and non-survivor groups to identify independent prognostic factors.
resultsA total of 88 patients were eligible for this study. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 53.4% (47/88). The proportion of hour-1 bundle achievement was 30.7% (27/88). There were no significant mortality differences between the hour-1 bundle achievement and non-achievement groups (44.4% vs. 57.4%, p = 0.35). Compared with the patients in the survivor group, patients in the non-survivor group had significantly more advanced stage of cirrhosis and a lower proportion of receiving source control (4.3% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.02). The chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] =1.52, p < 0.01), serum lactate (AHR =1.03, p < 0.01), and source control (AHR =0.54, p = 0.02) were identified as independent prognostic factors in the multivariate regression model. Furthermore, the CLIF-SOFA score (area under curve [AUC]: 0.81) and lactate levels (AUC: 0.77) revealed good mortality discrimination ability in cirrhotic patients with septic shock.
conclusionsThe application of the hour-1 bundle did not reveal a significant survival benefit to cirrhotic patients with septic shock. Clinicians could utilize CLIF-SOFA scores and lactate levels for mortality risk stratification and put more emphasis on the feasibility of source control to improve their prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.