Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635426›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023

The prevalence of sepsis-induced coagulopathy in patients with sepsis - a secondary analysis of two German multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Thomas Schmoch, Patrick Möhnle, Markus A Weigand, Josef Briegel, Michael Bauer, Frank Bloos, Patrick Meybohm, Didier Keh, Markus Löffler, Gunnar Elke and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas SchmochDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hôpitaux Robert Schuman - Hôpital Kirchberg, 9, Rue Edward Steichen, 2540, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. Thomas.schmoch@uni-due.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2984-7718
Patrick MöhnleDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Therapeutics and Hemostasis, Department of Anesthesiology, Klinikum Der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Markus A WeigandDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Josef BriegelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Klinikum Der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Michael BauerCenter for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Frank BloosCenter for Sepsis Control and Care, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Patrick MeybohmDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Didier KehDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Markus LöfflerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE) and Clinical Trial Centre Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Gunnar ElkeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Thorsten BrennerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Holger BogatschInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE) and Clinical Trial Centre Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
SepNet–Critical Care Trials Group
Jena University Hospital · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHeidelberg University · DEHôpital Kirchberg · LUUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01KG0701German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 01KG0701German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 01 KI 0106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis and septic shock are frequently accompanied by coagulopathy. Since the sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) score was first described, subsequent studies from Asia revealed a SIC prevalence of 40-60%. In Europe, however, SIC prevalence in patients fulfilling sepsis criteria according to the third international consensus definition (SEPSIS-3) has not yet been evaluated.

methodsThe Critical Care Trials Group of the German Sepsis Competence Network (SepNet) conducted a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials. Only patients fulfilling sepsis criteria according SEPSIS-3 were included in this secondary analysis. In a two step approach, SIC prevalence was determined in 267 patients with sepsis but not septic shock (at the time of inclusion) from the "Effect of Hydrocortisone on Development of Shock Among Patients With Severe Sepsis" (HYPRESS) trial. Then, we estimated SIC prevalence in 1,018 patients from the "Effect of Sodium Selenite Administration and Procalcitonin-Guided Therapy on Mortality in Patients With Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock" (SISPCT) trial using a simplified SIC score based on the platelet-SIC-subscore (PSSC). Study aims were to assess (i) the prevalence of SIC in patients with SEPSIS-3, (ii) the association of SIC with 90-day mortality and morbidity, (iii) the time when patients become SIC positive during the course of sepsis, and (iv) the value of the PSSC for predicting SIC.

resultsIn the HYPRESS trial, SIC prevalence was 22.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.5-27.5%). The estimated SIC prevalence in the SISPCT trial was 24.2% (95% CI 21.6-26.9%). In the HYPRESS trial, SIC was associated with significantly higher 90-day mortality (13.9% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.027) and morbidity. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, treatment arm, and (SIC-adapted) SOFA score confirmed the negative association of SIC with survival (p = 0.011). In the SISPCT trial, increased PSSCs were associated with higher 90-day mortality (PSSC 0: 34.4%, PSSC 1: 40.5%, PSSC 2: 53.3%; p < 0.001). In both trials, SIC was already present at sepsis diagnosis or occurred during the following 4 days.

conclusionsSIC is a clinically relevant complication of sepsis. Although it might be less frequent than previously reported, its occurrence is associated with higher morbidity and mortality and should be interpreted as an early warning sign.

Indexed as

Platelet countPrevalenceSepsisSepsis-induced coagulopathySeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID36635426
PMCPMC9837358
OpenAlexW4315778660

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.