An evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the 1991 American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine and the 2001 Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society/Surgical Infection Society sepsis definition.

OBJECTIVES: Limited research has been conducted to compare the test characteristics of the 1991 and 2001 sepsis consensus definitions. This study assessed the accuracy of the two sepsis consensus definitions among adult critically ill patients compared to sepsis case adjudication by three senior clinicians. DESIGN: Observational study of patients admitted to intensive care units. SETTING: Seven intensive care units of an academic medical center. PATIENTS: A random sample of 960 patients from all adult intensive care unit patients between October 2007 and December 2008. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the two consensus definitions were calculated by comparing the number of patients who met or did not meet consensus definitions vs. the number of patients who were or were not diagnosed with sepsis by adjudication. The 1991 sepsis definition had a high sensitivity of 94.6%, but a low specificity of 61.0%. The 2001 sepsis definition had a slightly increased sensitivity but a decreased specificity, which were 96.9% and 58.3%, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the two definitions were not statistically different (0.778 and 0.776, respectively). The sensitivities and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of both definitions were lower at the 24-hr time window level than those of the intensive care unit stay level, though their specificities increased slightly. Fever, high white blood cell count or immature forms, low Glasgow coma score, edema, positive fluid balance, high cardiac index, low PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and high levels of creatinine and lactate were significantly associated with sepsis by both definitions and adjudication. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 1991 and the 2001 sepsis definition have a high sensitivity but low specificity; the 2001 definition has a slightly increased sensitivity but a decreased specificity compared to the 1991 definition. The diagnostic performances of both definitions were suboptimal. A parsimonious set of significant predictors for sepsis diagnosis is likely to improve current sepsis case definitions.

Early glycemic control in critically ill emergency department patients: pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: Glycemic control in the critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patient has been shown to improve morbidity and mortality. We sought to investigate the effect of early glycemic control in critically ill emergency department (ED) patients in a small pilot trial. METHODS: Adult non-trauma, non-pregnant ED patients presenting to a university tertiary referral center and identified as critically ill were eligible for enrollment on a convenience basis. Critical illness was determined upon assignment for ICU admission. Patients were randomized to either ED standard care or glycemic control. Glycemic control involved use of an insulin drip to maintain blood glucose levels between 80-140 mg/dL. Glycemic control continued until ED discharge. Standard patients were managed at ED attending physician discretion. We assessed severity of illness by calculation of APACHE II score. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included vasopressor requirement, hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation requirement. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized, 24 to the glycemic group and 26 to the standard care cohort. Four of the 24 patients (17%) in the treatment arm did not receive insulin despite protocol requirements. While receiving insulin, three of 24 patients (13%) had an episode of hypoglycemia. By chance, the patients in the treatment group had a trend toward higher acuity by APACHE II scores. Patient mortality and morbidity were similar despite the acuity difference. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in morbidity and mortality between the two groups. The benefit of glycemic control may be subject to source of illness and to degree of glycemic control, or have no effect. Such questions bear future investigation.