Search

ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of surveillance of severe sepsis using electronic health record clinical data vs claims and to compare incidence and mortality trends using both methods.DesignWe created an electronic health record-based surveillance definition for severe sepsis using clinical indicators of infection (blood culture and antibiotic orders) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and/or abnormal laboratory values). We reviewed 1,000 randomly selected medical charts to characterize the definition's accuracy and stability over time compared with a claims-based definition requiring infection and organ dysfunction codes. We compared incidence and mortality trends from 2003-2012 using both methods.SettingTwo US academic hospitals.PatientsAdult inpatients.ResultsThe electronic health record-based clinical surveillance definition had stable and high sensitivity over time (77% in 2003-2009 vs 80% in 2012, P=.58) whereas the sensitivity of claims increased (52% in 2003-2009 vs 67% in 2012, P=.02). Positive predictive values for claims and clinical surveillance definitions were comparable (55% vs 53%, P=.65) and stable over time. From 2003 to 2012, severe sepsis incidence imputed from claims rose by 72% (95% CI, 57%-88%) and absolute mortality declined by 5.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-6.7%). In contrast, incidence using the clinical surveillance definition increased by 7.7% (95% CI, -1.1% to 17%) and mortality declined by 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.3%).ConclusionsSepsis surveillance using clinical data is more sensitive and more stable over time compared with claims and can be done electronically. This may enable more reliable estimates of sepsis burden and trends.

We assessed 4045 ambulatory surgery patients for surgical site infection (SSI) using claims-based triggers for medical chart review. Of 98 patients flagged by codes suggestive of SSI, 35 had confirmed SSIs. SSI rates ranged from 0 to 3.2% for common procedures. Claims may be useful for SSI surveillance following ambulatory surgery.

Timely and accurate data on the epidemiology of sepsis is essential to inform public policy, clinical practice, and research priorities. Recent studies have illuminated several ongoing questions about sepsis epidemiology, including the incidence and outcomes of sepsis in non-Western countries and in specialized populations such as surgical patients, patients with cancer, and the elderly. There have also been new insights into the limitations of current surveillance methods using administrative data and increasing experience tracking sepsis incidence and outcomes using "big data" approaches that take advantage of detailed electronic health record data. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has fundamentally changed the landscape of sepsis epidemiology. It has increased sepsis rates, helped highlight ongoing controversies about how to define sepsis, and intensified debate about the possible unintended consequences of overly rigid sepsis care bundles. Despite these controversies, there is a growing consensus that severe COVID-19 causing organ dysfunction is appropriate to label as sepsis, even though it is treated very differently from bacterial sepsis, and that surveillance strategies need to be modified to reliably identify these cases to fully capture and delineate the current burden of sepsis. This review will summarize recent insights into the epidemiology of sepsis and highlight several urgent questions and priorities catalyzed by COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Devastating cases of sepsis in previously healthy patients have received widespread attention and have helped to catalyze state and national mandates to improve sepsis detection and care. However, it is unclear what proportion of patients hospitalized with sepsis previously were healthy and how their outcomes compare with those of patients with comorbidities.Research Question: Among adults hospitalized with community-onset sepsis, how many previously were healthy and how do their outcomes compare with those of patients with comorbidities?Study Design and Methods: We retrospectively identified all adults with community-onset sepsis hospitalized in 373 US hospitals from 2009 through 2015 using clinical indicators of presumed infection and organ dysfunction (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event criteria). Comorbidities were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We applied generalized linear mixed models to measure the associations between the presence or absence of comorbidities and short-term mortality (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice), adjusting for severity of illness on admission.Results: Of 6,715,286 hospitalized patients, 337,983 (5.0%) were hospitalized with community-onset sepsis. Most patients with sepsis (329,052 [97.4%]) had received a diagnosis of at least one comorbidity; only 2.6% previously were healthy. Patients with sepsis who previously were healthy were younger than those with comorbidities (mean age, 58.0 ± 19.8 years vs 67.0 ± 16.5 years), were less likely to require ICU care on admission (37.9% vs 50.5%), and were more likely to be discharged home (57.9% vs 45.6%), rather than to subacute facilities (16.3% vs 30.8%), but showed higher short-term mortality rates (22.8% vs 20.8%; P < .001 for all). The association between previously healthy status and higher short-term mortality persisted after risk adjustment (adjusted OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.87-2.13).Interpretation: The vast majority of patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis harbor pre-existing comorbidities. However, previously healthy patients may be more likely to die when they seek treatment at the hospital with sepsis compared with patients with comorbidities. These findings underscore the importance of early sepsis recognition and treatment for all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different methods of calculating Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores using electronic health record data on the incidence, outcomes, agreement, and predictive validity of Sepsis-3 criteria. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Five Massachusetts hospitals. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults, 2015 to 2022. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We defined sepsis as a suspected infection (culture obtained and antibiotic administered) with a concurrent increase in SOFA score by greater than or equal to 2 points (Sepsis-3 criteria). Our reference SOFA implementation strategy imputed normal values for missing data, used Pao2/Fio2 ratios for respiratory scores, and assumed normal baseline SOFA scores for community-onset sepsis. We then implemented SOFA scores using different missing data imputation strategies (averaging worst values from preceding and following days vs. carrying forward nonmissing values), imputing respiratory scores using Spo2/Fio2 ratios, and incorporating comorbidities and prehospital laboratory data into baseline SOFA scores. Among 1,064,459 hospitalizations, 297,512 (27.9%) had suspected infection and 141,052 (13.3%) had sepsis with an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.3% using the reference SOFA method. The percentage of patients missing SOFA components for at least 1 day in the infection window was highest for Pao2/Fio2 ratios (98.6%), followed by Spo2/Fio2 ratios (73.5%), bilirubin (68.5%), and Glasgow Coma Scale scores (57.2%). Different missing data imputation strategies yielded near-perfect agreement in identifying sepsis (kappa 0.99). However, using Spo2/Fio2 imputations yielded higher sepsis incidence (18.3%), lower mortality (8.1%), and slightly lower predictive validity for mortality (area under the receiver operating curves [AUROC] 0.76 vs. 0.78). For community-onset sepsis, incorporating comorbidities and historical laboratory data into baseline SOFA score estimates yielded lower sepsis incidence (6.9% vs. 11.6%), higher mortality (13.4% vs. 9.6%), and higher predictive validity (AUROC 0.79 vs. 0.75) relative to the reference SOFA implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Common variations in calculating respiratory and baseline SOFA scores, but not in handling missing data, lead to substantial differences in observed incidence, mortality, agreement, and predictive validity of Sepsis-3 criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the challenges of accurately measuring the incidence and mortality of sepsis, a global health priority. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed the "Adult Sepsis Event" (ASE) definition in 2018, which uses clinical data from electronic health records (EHR) to identify sepsis. This study in South Korea validates the feasibility and benefits of using the ASE definition to measure sepsis incidence and outcomes outside of the U.S. The study also highlights the limitations of using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for tracking sepsis. The findings suggest that ASE surveillance could facilitate standardized international comparisons of sepsis rates and mortality. The study identifies areas for improvement, such as incorporating additional criteria and improving the match between electronic and traditional assessment methods. However, the study's limitations include its focus on a single hospital and a single year during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors emphasize the importance of conducting sepsis surveillance in low- and middle-income settings and the potential for ASE surveillance to provide reliable global data on sepsis epidemiology. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: Prior studies have reported that hospital-onset sepsis is associated with higher mortality rates than community-onset sepsis. Most studies, however, have used inconsistent case-finding methods and applied limited risk-adjustment for potential confounders. We used consistent sepsis criteria and detailed electronic clinical data to elucidate the epidemiology and mortality associated with hospital-onset sepsis.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: 136 U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset.Patients: Adults hospitalized in 2009-2015.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: We identified sepsis using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event criteria and estimated the risk of in-hospital death for hospital-onset sepsis versus community-onset sepsis using logistic regression models. In patients admitted without community-onset sepsis, we estimated risk of death associated with hospital-onset sepsis using Cox regression models with sepsis as a time-varying covariate. Models were adjusted for baseline characteristics and severity of illness. Among 2.2 million hospitalizations, there were 95,154 sepsis cases: 83,620 (87.9%) community-onset sepsis and 11,534 (12.1%) hospital-onset sepsis (0.5% of hospitalized cohort). Compared to community-onset sepsis, hospital-onset sepsis patients were younger (median 66 vs 68 yr) but had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 14 vs 11), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (median 4 vs 3), higher ICU admission rates (61% vs 44%), longer hospital length of stay (median 19 vs 8 d), and higher in-hospital mortality (33% vs 17%) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). On multivariate analysis, hospital-onset sepsis was associated with higher mortality versus community-onset sepsis (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.2) and patients admitted without sepsis (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.9-3.2).Conclusions: Hospital-onset sepsis complicated one in 200 hospitalizations and accounted for one in eight sepsis cases, with one in three patients dying in-hospital. Hospital-onset sepsis preferentially afflicted ill patients but even after risk-adjustment, they were twice as likely to die as community-onset sepsis patients; in patients admitted without sepsis, hospital-onset sepsis tripled the risk of death. Hospital-onset sepsis is an important target for surveillance, prevention, and quality improvement initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in sepsis screening and management is controversial, particularly as they were derived only in patients with suspected infection. We examined the epidemiology and prognostic value of qSOFA in undifferentiated patients.Methods: We identified patients with ≥ 2 qSOFA criteria within 1 day of admission among all adults admitted to 85 US hospitals from 2012 to 2015 and assessed for suspected infection (using clinical cultures and administration of antibiotics) and sepsis (as defined on the basis of Sepsis-3 criteria). We also examined the discrimination of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality among patients with and without suspected infection, using regression models.Results: Of 1,004,347 hospitalized patients, 271,500 (27.0%) were qSOFA-positive on admission. Compared with qSOFA-negative patients, qSOFA-positive patients were older (median age, 65 vs 58 years), required ICU admission more often (28.5% vs 6.5%), and had higher mortality (6.7% vs 0.8%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Sensitivities of qSOFA for suspected infection and sepsis were 41.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-41.5%) and 62.8% (95% CI, 62.4%-63.1%), respectively; positive predictive values were 31.0% (95% CI, 30.8%-31.1%) and 17.4% (95% CI, 17.2%-17.5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for mortality was lower for qSOFA in patients with suspected infection vs those without (0.814 vs 0.875; P < .001).Conclusions: Only one in three patients who are qSOFA-positive on admission has suspected infection, and one in six has sepsis. qSOFA also has low sensitivity for identifying suspected infection and sepsis, and its prognostic significance is not specific to infection. More sensitive and specific tools for sepsis screening and risk stratification are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study includes a full range of sepsis codes, including the codes for septicemia and the sepsis-specific codes for sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock introduced in 2002. Finally, 6-month sepsis-associated mortality rates declined over the study period but remained extraordinarily high: approximately 60% for patients with codes for septic shock, 36.4% for severe sepsis, and 30.9% for unspecified sepsis. Notably, the same study documented substantial undercoding for sepsis and an increase in the proportion of sepsis cases that were assigned sepsis codes, rising from 24.9% in 2009 to 30.5% in 2014, thus confirming that sepsis documentation and coding are incomplete but improving. Costs for sepsis hospitalizations decreased, whereas costs for nonsepsis hospitalizations increased. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Reports that septic shock incidence is rising and mortality rates declining may be confounded by improving recognition of sepsis and changing coding practices. We compared trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in academic hospitals using clinical vs claims data.Methods: We identified all patients with concurrent blood cultures, antibiotics, and vasopressors for ≥ two consecutive days, and all patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9) codes for septic shock, at 27 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2014. We compared annual incidence and mortality trends. We reviewed 967 records from three hospitals to estimate the accuracy of each method.Results: Of 6.5 million adult hospitalizations, 99,312 (1.5%) were flagged by clinical criteria, 82,350 (1.3%) by ICD-9 codes, and 44,651 (0.7%) by both. Sensitivity for clinical criteria was higher than claims (74.8% vs 48.3%; P < .01), whereas positive predictive value was comparable (83% vs 89%; P = .23). Septic shock incidence, based on clinical criteria, rose from 12.8 to 18.6 cases per 1,000 hospitalizations (average, 4.9% increase/y; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.9%), while mortality declined from 54.9% to 50.7% (average, 0.6% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%). In contrast, septic shock incidence, based on ICD-9 codes, increased from 6.7 to 19.3 per 1,000 hospitalizations (19.8% increase/y; 95% CI, 16.6%-20.9%), while mortality decreased from 48.3% to 39.3% (1.2% decline/y; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.6%).Conclusions: A clinical surveillance definition based on concurrent vasopressors, blood cultures, and antibiotics accurately identifies septic shock hospitalizations and suggests that the incidence of patients receiving treatment for septic shock has risen and mortality rates have fallen, but less dramatically than estimated on the basis of ICD-9 codes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Sepsis hospitalizations have increased dramatically in the last decade. It is unclear whether this represents an actual rise in sepsis illness or improved capture by coding. We evaluated the impact of Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance after newly introduced sepsis codes and medical severity diagnosis-related group (MS-DRG) systems on sepsis trends. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study of California hospitalizations from January 2000 to December 2010, sepsis was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding (Dombrovskiy method). Sepsis-associated mortality rates were calculated. Logistic regression models evaluated variables associated with sepsis and mortality. Segmented regression time series analysis assessed changes in sepsis frequency for (1) baseline (January 2000 to September 2003); (2) post-CMS guidelines on sepsis coding (October 2003 to September 2007); and (3) after the introduction of MS-DRG (October 2007 to December 2010). Results. Annual hospitalizations with sepsis diagnoses tripled within a decade, from 21.1 to 59.9 cases per 1000 admissions, with a 2.8- and 2.0-fold increase in severe and nonsevere sepsis, respectively, whereas annual admissions remained unchanged and sepsisassociatedmortality decreased. Greatest increases were seen for severe sepsis present on admission (3.8-fold increase). Increases in sepsis were temporally correlated with CMS coding guidance and MS-DRG introduction after adjustment for comorbidity and other factors. Conclusions. Sepsis rate increases were associated with introduction of CMS-issued guidance for new sepsis ICD-9 coding and MSDRGs. Coding artifact ("up-capture" of less severely ill septic patients) may be contributing to the apparent rise in sepsis incidence and decline in mortality. Epidemiologic trends based on administrative data should account for policy-related effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Devastating cases of sepsis in previously healthy patients have received widespread attention and helped catalyze state and national mandates to improve sepsis detection and care. It is unclear, however, what proportion of sepsis cases occur in previously healthy people and how their outcomes compare to patients with comorbidities. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of adults admitted from 2009 to 2015 to 373 US hospitals from 3 cohorts using detailed electronic health record data. We identified patients with community-onset sepsis using CDC Adult Sepsis Event criteria and reviewed patients' ICD-9-CM codes to identify major and minor comorbidities. Generalized linear mixed models were used to identify the association between healthy vs. comorbid status and short-term mortality (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice) among sepsis patients, controlling for demographics and clinical characteristics. Results The cohort included 6,715,286 adult hospitalizations, of which 337,983 (5%) met community-onset sepsis criteria. Most (329,052; 97.4%) sepsis patients had at least one comorbidity (96.1% major, 1.2% minor, 0.1% pregnant) whereas the minority (8,931; 2.6%) were previously healthy. Hospitalized patients without sepsis, by contrast, tended to be healthier (6.2%, Figure 1). Compared with sepsis patients with comorbidities, previously healthy sepsis patients were younger (mean 48.3 + 20 vs. 66.9 + 16.5 years, P < 0.001) and less likely to require ICU care on admission (30.9% vs. 50.5%, P < 0.001). Previously healthy patients were more likely to be discharged home vs. subacute facilities compared with sepsis patients with comorbidities but had higher short-term mortality rates (22.7% vs. 20.8%, P < 0.001) (Figure 2). The increased risk of short-term death in healthy patients persisted on multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratios 1.36–1.79, P < 0.001). Conclusion The vast majority of patients who develop community-onset sepsis have pre-existing conditions. However, previously healthy patients may be at higher risk for death due to sepsis compared with patients with comorbidities. These findings provide context for high-profile reports about sepsis deaths in previously healthy people and underscore the importance of early sepsis recognition and treatment for all patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Guidelines recommend immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Understanding the epidemiology of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and empiric treatment patterns in sepsis could inform improvements in antibiotic utilization and outcomes. Methods We identified adults admitted during 2009–2015 to 104 US hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset who met CDC Adult Sepsis Event criteria and had positive clinical cultures within 2 days of admission. We characterized prevalence and empiric treatment rates for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE), ceftriaxone-resistant Gram-negative organisms (CRO) (including P. aeruginosa), and extended-spectrum β-lactamase Gram-negative organisms (ESBL). We evaluated associations between in-hospital mortality and either inappropriate empiric therapy (antibiotics inactive against any isolated pathogen) or excessively broad therapy (empiric MRSA or VRE coverage, extended spectrum β-lactam, or carbapenem therapy when targeted organisms were absent), adjusting for baseline characteristics and severity-of-illness. Results The cohort included 17,962 patients with culture-positive sepsis; 2,965 (16.5%) died in-hospital. The most common culture-positive sites were urine (51.2%), blood (41.8%), and respiratory (16.5%). The most common pathogens were E. coli (33.0%), S. aureus (20.9%), and Streptococcus (13.2%) (Figure 1). Most (81.6%) patients received empiric antibiotics active against all isolated pathogens. Empiric therapy was directed at resistant organisms in 67.5% of cases (primarily vancomycin and extended spectrum β-lactams, Figure 2), but resistant organisms were isolated in only 25.2% (MRSA 11.5%, CRO 12.9%, VRE 2.0%, ESBL 0.8%). Both inappropriate empiric therapy and excessively broad empiric therapy were associated with higher mortality on multivariate analysis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14–1.48 and OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05–1.38, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with community-onset sepsis do not have resistant pathogens, yet empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics are frequently prescribed. Both inappropriate empiric therapy and excessively broad therapy are associated with worse outcomes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared to CO-sepsis, HO-sepsis patients were younger (median age 66 vs 68) but had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 14 vs 11) including heart failure (26 vs 22%), renal disease (23 vs 20%), and cancer (17 vs 11%). HO-sepsis patients had higher SOFA scores at sepsis onset (median 4 vs 3), higher rates of intra-abdominal infections (20 vs 15%), more positive blood cultures (26 vs 21%), longer hospital length-of-stay (median 19 vs 8 days) and ICU length-of-stay (median 6 vs 4 days), and higher in-hospital mortality (34 vs 17%) (p<0.001 for all). On multivariate analysis, HO-sepsis was associated with higher risk of hospital death vs CO-sepsis (odds ratio 2.10, 95% CI 2.08-2.12) and vs patients without sepsis (hazard ratio 3.02, 95% CI 2.99-3.04). [Extracted from the article]

The authors reflects on the highlights of the article "Defining Sepsis Mortality Clusters in the United States" by J. X. Moore and others published in the July 2016 issue of the journal "Critical Care Medicine." Topics covered include the identified geographical variations in sepsis mortality rates in the U.S., the need for a robust and efficient sepsis surveillance infrastructure, and the process of monitoring sepsis rates and outcomes using electronic clinical data.

The author reflects on the article published within the issue on the national burden of sepsis in the U.S. emergency departments. It mentions delay in antibiotic administration relative to initial Emergency Medical Services (EMS) contact is associated with increased mortality and need of sepsis recognition and rapid antibiotic administration. It also mentions availability of electronic health record and conduct sepsis surveillance.

Objectives: Widespread use and misuse of prescription and illicit opioids have exposed millions to health risks including serious infectious complications. Little is known, however, about the association between opioid use and sepsis.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: About 373 U.S. hospitals.Patients: Adults hospitalized between January 2009 and September 2015.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Sepsis was identified by clinical indicators of concurrent infection and organ dysfunction. Opioid-related hospitalizations were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes and/or inpatient orders for buprenorphine. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared by sepsis and opioid-related hospitalization status. The association between opioid-related hospitalization and all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis was assessed using mixed-effects logistic models to adjust for baseline characteristics and severity of illness.The cohort included 6,715,286 hospitalizations; 375,479 (5.6%) had sepsis, 130,399 (1.9%) had opioid-related hospitalizations, and 8,764 (0.1%) had both. Compared with sepsis patients without opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 366,715), sepsis patients with opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 8,764) were younger (mean 52.3 vs 66.9 yr) and healthier (mean Elixhauser score 5.4 vs 10.5), had more bloodstream infections from Gram-positive and fungal pathogens (68.9% vs 47.0% and 10.6% vs 6.4%, respectively), and had lower in-hospital mortality rates (10.6% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Of 1,803 patients with opioid-related hospitalizations who died in-hospital, 928 (51.5%) had sepsis. Opioid-related hospitalizations accounted for 1.5% of all sepsis-associated deaths, including 5.7% of sepsis deaths among patients less than 50 years old. From 2009 to 2015, the proportion of sepsis hospitalizations that were opioid-related increased by 77% (95% CI, 40.7-123.5%).Conclusions: Sepsis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with opioid-related hospitalizations, and opioid-related hospitalizations contribute disproportionately to sepsis-associated deaths among younger patients. In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, public health agencies should focus on raising awareness about sepsis among patients who use opioids and their providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Learning Objectives: b The Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has been proposed as a screening tool to identify patients with suspected infection at high risk for adverse outcomes and to flag patients that merit evaluation for occult infection. Of the qSOFA patients, 31.3% had suspected infection on admission, while 35.8% of patients with suspected infection met qSOFA criteria. On multivariate analysis, qSOFA was associated with an odds ratio for death of 3.7 (95% CI 3.5-3.9) in patients with suspected infection and 3.3 (95% CI 3.2-3.4) in patients without suspected infection. [Extracted from the article]