Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38592420›Full record

Observational studyEuropean radiology2024

Computed tomography in patients with sepsis presenting to the emergency department: exploring its role in light of patient outcomes.

Julian Pohlan, Martin Möckel, Anna Slagman, Hannah Tenenbaum, Jules Stolz, Kerstin Rubarth, Johannes Winning, Michael Bauer, Konrad Reinhart, Angelika Stacke and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Julian PohlanDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Martin MöckelDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Anna SlagmanDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Hannah TenenbaumDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Jules StolzDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin RubarthBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Johannes WinningDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Michael BauerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Konrad ReinhartDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Angelika StackeErnst-Abbe-Hochschule, University of Applied Sciences, Carl-Zeiss-Promenade 2, 07745, Jena, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Myrto BolanakiDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. myrto.bolanaki@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2032-8559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to explore the role of CT in septic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a retrospective secondary analysis of 192 septic patients from a prospective observational study, i.e., the "LIFE POC" study. Sepsis was diagnosed in accordance with the Sepsis-3 definition. Clinical and radiological data were collected from the hospital administration and radiological systems. Information on mortality and morbidity was collected. Time-to-CT between CT scan and sepsis diagnosis (ttCTsd) was calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the final sepsis source as reference standard. The reference standard was established through the treating team of the patient based on all available clinical, imaging, and microbiological data.

resultsSixty-two of 192 patients underwent a CT examination for sepsis focus detection. The final septic source was identified by CT in 69.4% (n = 43). CT detected septic foci with 81.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 68.0-90.6%) and 55.6% specificity (95% CI, 21.2-86.3%). Patients with short versus long ttCTsd did not differ in terms of mortality (16.1%, n = 5 vs 9.7, n = 3; p = 0.449), length of hospital stay (median 16 d, IQR 9 d 12 h-23 d 18 h vs median 13 d, IQR 10 d 00 h-24 d 00 h; p = 0.863), or duration of intensive care (median 3d 12 h, IQR 2 d 6 h-7 d 18 h vs median 5d, IQR 2 d-11 d; p = 0.800).

conclusionsOur findings show a high sensitivity of CT in ED patients with sepsis, confirming its relevance in guiding treatment decisions. The low specificity suggests that a negative CT requires further ancillary diagnostic tests for focus detection. The timing of CT did not affect morbidity or mortality outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In patients with sepsis who present to the ED, CT can be used to identify infectious foci on the basis of clinical suspicion, but should not be used as a rule-out test. Scientific evidence for the optimal timing of CT beyond clinical decision-making is currently missing, as potential mortality benefits are clouded by differences in clinical severity at the time of ED presentation. KEY POINTS: • In patients with sepsis who present to the ED, CT for focus identification has a high sensitivity and can thereby be valuable for patient management. • As the specificity is considerably lower, a thorough microbiological assessment is important in these cases. • The timing of CT did not affect morbidity and mortality outcomes in this study, which might be due to variability in clinical severity at the time of ED presentation.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalSensitivity and SpecificitySepsisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesCTDiagnostic accuracyEmergency departmentMortalitySepsis

Identifiers

PMID38592420
PMCPMC11399293

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.