Does gender affect experiences in the operating room for surgeons and anesthesiologists at a large academic center?

BACKGROUND: Although the number of women medical trainees has increased in recent years, they remain a minority of the academic workforce. Gender-based implicit biases may lead to deleterious effects on surgical workforce retention and productivity. METHODS: All 440 attending surgeons and anesthesiologists employed at our institution were invited to complete a survey regarding perceptions of the perioperative work environment and resources. Odds ratios for dichotomous variables were calculated using logistic regressions, and for trichotomous variables, polytomous regressions. RESULTS: 243 participants (55.2%) provided complete survey responses. Relative to men, women faculty reported a greater need to prove themselves to staff; less respect and fewer resources and opportunities; more frequent assumptions about their capabilities; and a greater need to adjust their demeanor to connect with their team (p â€‹< â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Perceived gender bias remains present in the perioperative environment. We need greater efforts to address barriers and create an equitable work environment.

A Multi-mRNA Host-Response Molecular Blood Test for the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Acute Infections and Sepsis: Proceedings from a Clinical Advisory Panel.

Current diagnostics are insufficient for diagnosis and prognosis of acute infections and sepsis. Clinical decisions including prescription and timing of antibiotics, ordering of additional diagnostics and level-of-care decisions rely on understanding etiology and implications of a clinical presentation. Host mRNA signatures can differentiate infectious from noninfectious etiologies, bacterial from viral infections, and predict 30-day mortality. The 29-host-mRNA blood-based InSepTM test (Inflammatix, Burlingame, CA, formerly known as HostDxTM Sepsis) combines machine learning algorithms with a rapid point-of-care platform with less than 30 min turnaround time to enable rapid diagnosis of acute infections and sepsis, as well as prediction of disease severity. A scientific advisory panel including emergency medicine, infectious disease, intensive care and clinical pathology physicians discussed technical and clinical requirements in preparation of successful introduction of InSep into the market. Topics included intended use; patient populations of greatest need; patient journey and sample flow in the emergency department (ED) and beyond; clinical and biomarker-based decision algorithms; performance characteristics for clinical utility; assay and instrument requirements; and result readouts. The panel identified clear demand for a solution like InSep, requirements regarding test performance and interpretability, and a need for focused medical education due to the innovative but complex nature of the result readout. Innovative diagnostic solutions such as the InSep test could improve management of patients with suspected acute infections and sepsis in the ED, thereby lessening the overall burden of these conditions on patients and the healthcare system.

Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record-based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions.

To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018. SETTING: One community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of "the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit" that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed "billing code sensitivity" and "billing code predictive value." Physician review of electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30-0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11-0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07-0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.31). Electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3. CONCLUSIONS: By accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.

A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock.

PURPOSE: We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices. METHODS: This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.

Reporting of Sepsis Cases for Performance Measurement Versus for Reimbursement in New York State.

OBJECTIVES: Under "Rory's Regulations," New York State Article 28 acute care hospitals were mandated to implement sepsis protocols and report patient-level data. This study sought to determine how well cases reported under state mandate align with discharge records in a statewide administrative database. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: First 27 months of mandated sepsis reporting (April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016). PATIENTS: Hospitalizations with sepsis at New York State Article 28 acute care hospitals. INTERVENTION: Sepsis regulations with mandated reporting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared cases reported to the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database with discharge records in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. We classified discharges as 1) "coded sepsis discharges"-a diagnosis code for severe sepsis or septic shock and 2) "possible sepsis discharges," using Dombrovskiy and Angus criteria. Of 111,816 sepsis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database, 105,722 (94.5%) were matched to discharge records in Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. The percentage of coded sepsis discharges reported increased from 67.5% in the first quarter to 81.3% in the final quarter of the study period (mean, 77.7%). Accounting for unmatched cases, as many as 82.7% of coded sepsis discharges were potentially reported, whereas at least 17.3% were unreported. Compared with unreported discharges, reported discharges had higher rates of acute organ dysfunction (e.g., cardiovascular dysfunction 63.0% vs 51.8%; p < 0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (30.2% vs 26.1%; p < 0.001). Hospital characteristics (e.g., number of beds, teaching status, volume of sepsis cases) were similar between hospitals with a higher versus lower percent of discharges reported, p values greater than 0.05 for all. Hospitals' percent of discharges reported was not correlated with risk-adjusted mortality of their submitted cases (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.11; p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately four of five discharges with a diagnosis code of severe sepsis or septic shock in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System data were reported in the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database. Incomplete reporting appears to be driven more by underrecognition than attempts to game the system, with minimal bias to risk-adjusted hospital performance measurement.

The New York Sepsis Severity Score: Development of a Risk-Adjusted Severity Model for Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: In accordance with Rory's Regulations, hospitals across New York State developed and implemented protocols for sepsis recognition and treatment to reduce variations in evidence informed care and preventable mortality. The New York Department of Health sought to develop a risk assessment model for accurate and standardized hospital mortality comparisons of adult septic patients across institutions using case-mix adjustment. DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data. PATIENTS: Data from 43,204 severe sepsis and septic shock patients from 179 hospitals across New York State were evaluated. SETTINGS: Prospective data were submitted to a database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to estimate model coefficients used in the New York State risk model. The mortality probability was estimated using a logistic regression model. Variables to be included in the model were determined as part of the model-building process. Interactions between variables were included if they made clinical sense and if their p values were less than 0.05. Model development used a random sample of 90% of available patients and was validated using the remaining 10%. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit p values were considerably greater than 0.05, suggesting good calibration. Areas under the receiver operator curve in the developmental and validation subsets were 0.770 (95% CI, 0.765-0.775) and 0.773 (95% CI, 0.758-0.787), respectively, indicating good discrimination. Development and validation datasets had similar distributions of estimated mortality probabilities. Mortality increased with rising age, comorbidities, and lactate. CONCLUSIONS: The New York Sepsis Severity Score accurately estimated the probability of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. It performed well with respect to calibration and discrimination. This sepsis-specific model provides an accurate, comprehensive method for standardized mortality comparison of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Trials (ProCESS, ARISE, ProMISe): What is Optimal Resuscitation?

Between 2014 and 2015, 3 independent, multicenter, randomized controlled trials evaluated early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in severe sepsis and septic shock: Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) from the United States; Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE), and Protocolised Management in Sepsis (ProMISe) in the United Kingdom. All 3 trials confirmed that there was no survival benefit of EGDT compared to usual resuscitation. How should we define usual care for sepsis given these study findings? Furthermore, the definition of sepsis has now been updated. This article reviews key findings of these 3 trials and discusses these important issues in sepsis management.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

A Framework for the Development and Interpretation of Different Sepsis Definitions and Clinical Criteria.

Although sepsis was described more than 2,000 years ago, and clinicians still struggle to define it, there is no "gold standard," and multiple competing approaches and terms exist. Challenges include the ever-changing knowledge base that informs our understanding of sepsis, competing views on which aspects of any potential definition are most important, and the tendency of most potential criteria to be distributed in at-risk populations in such a way as to hinder separation into discrete sets of patients. We propose that the development and evaluation of any definition or diagnostic criteria should follow four steps: 1) define the epistemologic underpinning, 2) agree on all relevant terms used to frame the exercise, 3) state the intended purpose for any proposed set of criteria, and 4) adopt a scientific approach to inform on their usefulness with regard to the intended purpose. Usefulness can be measured across six domains: 1) reliability (stability of criteria during retesting, between raters, over time, and across settings), 2) content validity (similar to face validity), 3) construct validity (whether criteria measure what they purport to measure), 4) criterion validity (how new criteria fare compared to standards), 5) measurement burden (cost, safety, and complexity), and 6) timeliness (whether criteria are available concurrent with care decisions). The relative importance of these domains of usefulness depends on the intended purpose, of which there are four broad categories: 1) clinical care, 2) research, 3) surveillance, and 4) quality improvement and audit. This proposed methodologic framework is intended to aid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, provide a mechanism for explaining differences in epidemiologic estimates generated by different approaches, and guide the development of future definitions and diagnostic criteria.

Application of a Framework to Assess the Usefulness of Alternative Sepsis Criteria.

The current definition of sepsis is life-threatening, acute organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection. Criteria to operationalize this definition can be judged by six domains of usefulness (reliability, content, construct and criterion validity, measurement burden, and timeliness). The relative importance of these six domains depends on the intended purpose for the criteria (clinical care, basic and clinical research, surveillance, or quality improvement [QI] and audit). For example, criteria for clinical care should have high content and construct validity, timeliness, and low measurement burden to facilitate prompt care. Criteria for surveillance or QI/audit place greater emphasis on reliability across individuals and sites and lower emphasis on timeliness. Criteria for clinical trials require timeliness to ensure prompt enrollment and reasonable reliability but can tolerate high measurement burden. Basic research also tolerates high measurement burden and may not need stability over time. In an illustrative case study, we compared examples of criteria designed for clinical care, surveillance and QI/audit among 396,241 patients admitted to 12 academic and community hospitals in an integrated health system. Case rates differed four-fold and mortality three-fold. Predictably, clinical care criteria, which emphasized timeliness and low burden and therefore used vital signs and routine laboratory tests, had the greater case identification with lowest mortality. QI/audit criteria, which emphasized reliability and criterion validity, used discharge information and had the lowest case identification with highest mortality. Using this framework to identify the purpose and apply domains of usefulness can help with the evaluation of existing sepsis diagnostic criteria and provide a roadmap for future work.

Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidance for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited and uncertainty remains over its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to estimate the effect of EGDT compared with usual resuscitation on mortality at 90 days following randomisation and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. The secondary objectives were to compare EGDT with usual resuscitation for requirement for, and duration of, critical care unit organ support; length of stay in the emergency department (ED), critical care unit and acute hospital; health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and at 1 year; all-cause mortality at 28 days, at acute hospital discharge and at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Fifty-six NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1260 patients who presented at EDs with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: EGDT (n = 630) or usual resuscitation (n = 630). Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: Following withdrawals, data on 1243 (EGDT, n = 623; usual resuscitation, n = 620) patients were included in the analysis. By 90 days, 184 (29.5%) in the EGDT and 181 (29.2%) patients in the usual-resuscitation group had died [p = 0.90; absolute risk reduction -0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.4 to 4.7; relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20]. Treatment intensity was greater for the EGDT group, indicated by the increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs and red blood cell transfusions. Increased treatment intensity was reflected by significantly higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and more advanced cardiovascular support days in critical care for the EGDT group. At 1 year, the incremental net benefit for EGDT versus usual resuscitation was negative at -£725 (95% CI -£3000 to £1550). The probability that EGDT was more cost-effective than usual resuscitation was below 30%. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or adverse events. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment was lower at weekends and out of hours. The intervention could not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days for EGDT compared with usual resuscitation among adults identified with early septic shock presenting to EDs in England. On average, costs were higher in the EGDT group than in the usual-resuscitation group while quality-adjusted life-years were similar in both groups; the probability that it is cost-effective is < 30%. FUTURE WORK: The ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) trial completes the planned trio of evaluations of EGDT across the USA, Australasia and England; all have indicated that EGDT is not superior to usual resuscitation. Recognising that each of the three individual, large trials has limited power for evaluating potentially important subgroups, the harmonised approach adopted provides the opportunity to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis, enhancing both knowledge and generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36307479. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 97. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidelines for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited, and uncertainty about its effectiveness remains. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with an integrated cost-effectiveness analysis in 56 hospitals in England. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either EGDT (a 6-hour resuscitation protocol) or usual care. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 1260 patients, with 630 assigned to EGDT and 630 to usual care. By 90 days, 184 of 623 patients (29.5%) in the EGDT group and 181 of 620 patients (29.2%) in the usual-care group had died (relative risk in the EGDT group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.7). Increased treatment intensity in the EGDT group was indicated by increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs, and red-cell transfusions and reflected by significantly worse organ-failure scores, more days receiving advanced cardiovascular support, and longer stays in the intensive care unit. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or in rates of serious adverse events. On average, EGDT increased costs, and the probability that it was cost-effective was below 20%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock who were identified early and received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ProMISe Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN36307479.).

Lactate measurements in sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion: results from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database.

OBJECTIVE: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend obtaining a serum lactate measurement within 6 hours of presentation for all patients with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock. A lactate greater than 4 mmol/L qualifies for administration of early quantitative resuscitation therapy. We evaluated lactate elevation (with special attention to values > 4 mmol/L) and presence or absence of hypotension as a marker of clinical outcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign developed a database to assess the overall effect of the sepsis bundles as a performance improvement tool for clinical practice and patient outcome. This analysis focuses on one element of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign's resuscitation bundle, measuring serum lactate in adult severe sepsis or septic shock patients and its interaction with hypotension. This analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2010. SUBJECTS: Data from 28,150 subjects at 218 sites were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis of the 28,150 observations from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database demonstrated a significant mortality increase with the presence of hypotension in conjunction with serum lactate elevation greater than 2 mmol/L. On multivariable analysis, only lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, in conjunction with hypotension, significantly increased mortality when compared with the referent group of lactate values less than 2 mmol/L and not hypotensive. Mortality was 44.5% in patients with combined lactate greater than 4 mmol/L and hypotension when compared with 29% mortality in patients not meeting either criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Serum lactate was commonly measured within 6 hours of presentation in the management of severe sepsis or septic shock in this subset analysis of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database in accordance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Our results demonstrate that elevated lactate levels are highly associated with in-hospital mortality. However, only patients who presented with lactate values greater than 4 mmol/L, with and without hypotension, are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with a significantly higher risk than intermediate levels (2-3 and 3-4 mmol/L). This supports the use of the cutoff of greater than 4 mmol/L as a qualifier for future clinical trials in severe sepsis or septic shock in patient populations who use quantitative resuscitation and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles as standard of care.

Age-related differences in biomarkers of acute inflammation during hospitalization for sepsis.

The authors aimed to evaluate age-related differences in inflammation biomarkers during the first 72 h of hospitalization for sepsis. This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort of adult patients (n = 855) from 10 urban academic emergency departments with confirmed infection and two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Six inflammation-related biomarkers were analyzed-chemokine (CC-motif) ligand-23, C-reactive protein, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), peptidoglycan recognition protein, and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1a (TNFR-1a)-measured at presentation and 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, or 72 h later. The median age was 56 (interquartile range, 43 - 72) years, and sepsis severity was 38% sepsis, 16% severe sepsis without shock, and 46% septic shock; the overall 30-day mortality was 12%. Older age was associated with higher sepsis severity: 41% of subjects aged 18 to 34 years had severe sepsis or septic shock compared with 71% for those aged 65 years or older (P < 0.001). In longitudinal models adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and infection source, older age was associated with higher baseline values for chemokine (CC-motif) ligand-23, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, NGAL, and TNFR-1a (all P < 0.05). However, older adults had higher mean values during the entire 72-h period only for NGAL and TNFR-1a and higher final 72-h values only for TNFR-1a. Adjustment or stratification by sepsis severity did not change the age-inflammation associations. Although older adults had higher levels of inflammation at presentation and an increased incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock, these age-related differences in inflammation largely resolved during the first 72 h of hospitalization.