Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39563464›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024

A multicentre prospective registry of one thousand sepsis patients admitted in Indian ICUs: (SEPSIS INDIA) study.

Subhash Todi, Yatin Mehta, Kapil Zirpe, Subhal Dixit, Atul P Kulkarni, Sushma Gurav, Shweta Ram Chandankhede, Deepak Govil, Amitabha Saha, Arpit Kumar Saha and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

24 authors.

Subhash TodiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Manipal Hospital Dhakuria, P-4 & 5, CIT Scheme, LXXII, Block-A, Gariahat Road, Kolkata, 700029, India. drsubhashtodi@gmail.com.
Yatin MehtaMedanta Institute of Critical Care and Anesthesiology, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Kapil ZirpeNeuro Trauma Intensive Care Unit, Grant Medical Foundation, Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune, India.
Subhal DixitSanjeevan Hospital, Pune, India.
Atul P KulkarniDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Sushma GuravNeuro Trauma Intensive Care Unit, Grant Medical Foundation, Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune, India.
Shweta Ram ChandankhedeCare Hospitals, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India.
Deepak GovilMedanta Institute of Critical Care and Anesthesiology, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Amitabha SahaShantiniketan Medical College, Bolpur, West Bengal, India.
Arpit Kumar SahaShantiniketan Medical College, Bolpur, West Bengal, India.
Sumalatha ArunachalaAdichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellur, India.
Kapil BorawakeSahyadri Hospital, Hadapsar, Pune, India.
Shilpushp BhosaleDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Sumit RayHoly Family Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Ruchi GuptaHoly Family Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Swarna Deepak KuragayalaApollo Health City, Hyderabad, India.
Srinivas SamavedamRamdev Rao Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Mehul ShahSir H N Reliance Foundation and Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Ashit HegdeP D Hinduja National Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Palepu GopalCitizens Hospital, Hyderabad, India.
Abdul Samad AnsariNanavati Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Ajoy Krishna SarkarPeerless Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Rahul PanditSir H N Reliance Foundation and Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Other contributors to SEPSIS Registry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is a global health problem with high morbidity and mortality. Low- and middle-income countries have a higher incidence and poorer outcome with sepsis. Large epidemiological studies in sepsis using Sepsis-3 criteria, addressing the process of care and deriving predictors of mortality are scarce in India.

methodA multicentre, prospective sepsis registry was conducted using Sepsis 3 criteria of suspected or confirmed infection and SOFA score of 2 or more in 19 ICUs in India over a period of one year (August 2022-July 2023). All adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit who fulfilled the Sepsis 3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock were included. Patient infected with Covid 19 were excluded. Patients demographics, severity, admission details, initial resuscitation, laboratory and microbiological data and clinical outcome were recorded. Performance improvement programs as recommended by the Surviving Sepsis guideline were noted from the participating centers. Patients were followed till discharge or death while in hospital.

resultsRegistry Data of 1172 patients with sepsis (including 500 patients with septic shock) were analysed. The average age of the study cohort was 65 years, and 61% were male. The average APACHE II and SOFA score was 21 and 6.7 respectively. The majority of patients had community-acquired infections, and lung infections were the most common source. Of all culture positive results, 65% were gram negative organism. Carbapenem-resistance was identified in 50% of the gram negative blood culture isolates. The predominant gram negative organisms were Klebsiella spp (25%), Escherechia coli (24%) and Acinetobacter Spp (11%). Tropical infections (Dengue, Malaria, Typhus) constituted minority (n = 32, 2.2%) of sepsis patients. The observed hospital mortality for the entire cohort (n = 1172) was 36.3%, for those without shock (n = 672) it was 25.6% and for those with shock (n = 500) it was 50.8%. The average length of ICU and hospital stay for the study cohort was 8.64 and 11.9 respectively. In multivariate analysis adequate source control, correct choice of empiric antibiotic and the use of intravenous thiamine were protective.

conclusionThe general demographics of the sepsis population in the Indian Sepsis Registry is comparable to Western population. The mortality of sepsis cohort was higher (36.3%) but septic shock mortality (50.8%) was comparable to Western reports. Gram negative infection was the predominant cause of sepsis with a high incidence of carbapenem resistance. Eschericia coli, Klebsiella Spp and Acinetobacter Spp were the predominant causative organism. Tropical infection constituted a minority of sepsis population with low hospital mortality. The SOFA score on admission was a comparatively better predictor of poor outcome. Sepsis secondary to nosocomial infections had the worst outcomes, while source control, correct empirical antibiotic selection, and intravenous thiamine were protective. CTRI Registration CTRI:2022/07/044516.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsRegistriesSepsisAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresProspective StudiesEpidemiologyIndiaIntensive Care UnitRegistrySepsis

Identifiers

PMID39563464
PMCPMC11577944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.