COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of Automated Methods Versus the American Burn Association Sepsis Definition to Identify Sepsis and Sepsis With Organ Dysfunction/Septic Shock in Burn-Injured Adults.

To develop an algorithm to identify sepsis and sepsis with organ dysfunction/septic shock in burn-injured patients incorporating criteria from the American Burn Association sepsis definition that possesses good test characteristics compared with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9) codes and an algorithm previously validated in nonburn-injured septic patients (Martin et al method). This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to the burn intensive care unit between January 2008 and March 2015. Of the 4761 admitted, 8.6% (n = 407) met inclusion criteria, of which the case rate for sepsis was 34.2% (n = 139; n = 48 sepsis; n = 91 sepsis with organ dysfunction/septic shock). For sepsis identification, the novel algorithm had an accuracy of 86.0% (95% CI: 82.2-89.2%), sensitivity of 66.9% (95% CI: 59.1-74.7%), and specificity of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.5-98.3%). The novel algorithm had better discrimination (0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.86) than the ICD-9 method (0.77, 95% CI: 0.73-0.81), although this was not significant (P = .08). For sepsis with organ dysfunction/septic shock, the novel algorithm plus vasopressors (0.67, 95% CI: 0.63-0.72) and the ICD-9 method (0.63, 95% CI: 0.58-0.68) performed equivocal (P = 0.15) but the Martin method (0.76, 95% CI: 0.71-0.81) had superior discrimination than other methods (P < .01). The novel algorithm is an accurate and simple tool to identify sepsis in the burn cohort with good sensitivity and specificity and equivocal discriminative ability to ICD-9 coding. The Martin method had superior discriminative ability for identifying sepsis with organ dysfunction/septic shock in burn-injured patients than either the novel algorithm plus vasopressors or ICD-9 coding.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app