Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 21;222(Suppl 2):S74-S83. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa102.
Sepsis is a leading cause of death and the target of intense efforts to improve recognition, management and outcomes. Accurate sepsis surveillance is essential to properly interpreting the impact of quality improvement initiatives, making meaningful comparisons across hospitals and geographic regions, and guiding future research and resource investments. However, it is challenging to reliably track sepsis incidence and outcomes because sepsis is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome without a pathologic reference standard, allowing for subjectivity and broad discretion in assigning diagnoses. Most epidemiologic studies of sepsis to date have used hospital discharge codes and have suggested dramatic increases in sepsis incidence and decreases in mortality rates over time. However, diagnosis and coding practices vary widely between hospitals and are changing over time, complicating the interpretation of absolute rates and trends. Other surveillance approaches include death records, prospective clinical registries, retrospective medical record reviews, and analyses of the usual care arms of randomized controlled trials. Each of these strategies, however, has substantial limitations. Recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released an "Adult Sepsis Event" definition that uses objective clinical indicators of infection and organ dysfunction that can be extracted from most hospitals' electronic health record systems. Emerging data suggest that electronic health record-based clinical surveillance, such as surveillance of Adult Sepsis Event, is accurate, can be applied uniformly across diverse hospitals, and generates more credible estimates of sepsis trends than administrative data. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of different sepsis surveillance strategies and consider future directions.
脓毒症是导致死亡的主要原因,也是提高识别能力、管理水平和改善预后的重点目标。准确的脓毒症监测对于正确解读质量改进计划的影响、在医院和地理区域之间进行有意义的比较以及指导未来的研究和资源投资至关重要。然而,由于脓毒症是一种没有病理参考标准的异质临床综合征,允许在诊断分配方面存在主观性和广泛的自由裁量权,因此可靠地跟踪脓毒症的发病率和结局具有挑战性。迄今为止,大多数关于脓毒症的流行病学研究都使用了医院出院代码,并表明随着时间的推移,脓毒症的发病率显著增加,死亡率下降。然而,医院之间的诊断和编码实践差异很大,而且随着时间的推移也在发生变化,这使得绝对发病率和趋势的解释变得复杂。其他监测方法包括死亡记录、前瞻性临床登记、回顾性病历审查以及随机对照试验的常规护理臂分析。然而,这些策略都存在很大的局限性。最近,美国疾病控制与预防中心发布了一项“成人脓毒症事件”定义,该定义使用了可以从大多数医院的电子健康记录系统中提取的感染和器官功能障碍的客观临床指标。新出现的数据表明,基于电子健康记录的临床监测,如成人脓毒症事件监测,是准确的,可以在不同的医院中统一应用,并能比管理数据更准确地估计脓毒症的趋势。在这篇综述中,我们讨论了不同脓毒症监测策略的优缺点,并考虑了未来的方向。