Sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days: outcomes of a single-center retrospective study.

Critical care science Pub Date : 2024-12-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62675/2965-2774.20240116-en
Abdelrahman Nanah, Fatima Abdeljaleel, Marcos Vinícius Fernandes Garcia, Kelly Pannikodu, Mohannad Seif, Amy Flowers-Surovi, Naveen Gopal, Divyajot Sadana
{"title":"Sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days: outcomes of a single-center retrospective study.","authors":"Abdelrahman Nanah, Fatima Abdeljaleel, Marcos Vinícius Fernandes Garcia, Kelly Pannikodu, Mohannad Seif, Amy Flowers-Surovi, Naveen Gopal, Divyajot Sadana","doi":"10.62675/2965-2774.20240116-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate a cohort of sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days postdischarge, explore the one-year mortality rate based on different causes of readmission and identify factors associated with increased one-year mortality risk among all sepsis survivors readmitted within this timeframe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center retrospective cohort study involving adult sepsis survivors who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the cause of readmission: same-source infectious readmission, different-source infectious readmission, and noninfectious readmission. The outcome of interest was all-cause one-year mortality. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare factors associated with one-year mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,666 patients admitted with sepsis, 243 (14.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmissions were due to same-source infections (40.7%), different-source infections (21.4%), or noninfectious causes (37.9%). All-cause one-year mortality was 46.9%, with no difference between the groups. Age (HR 1.02; 95%CI: 1.003 - 1.04; p = 0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.02 - 1.18; p = 0.01), discharge to a care facility during index admission (HR 1.6; 95%CI: 1.04 - 2.40; p = 0.03), and malignancy (HR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.5 - 3.7; p < 0.001) were associated with one-year mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Thirty-day readmission in sepsis survivors was common and was associated with a 46.9% one-year mortality rate regardless of readmission cause. Quality improvement patient safety initiatives based on local institutional factors may allow for targeted interventions to improve sepsis survivor outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":"36 ","pages":"e20240116en"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240116-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate a cohort of sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days postdischarge, explore the one-year mortality rate based on different causes of readmission and identify factors associated with increased one-year mortality risk among all sepsis survivors readmitted within this timeframe.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study involving adult sepsis survivors who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the cause of readmission: same-source infectious readmission, different-source infectious readmission, and noninfectious readmission. The outcome of interest was all-cause one-year mortality. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare factors associated with one-year mortality.

Results: Of the 1,666 patients admitted with sepsis, 243 (14.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmissions were due to same-source infections (40.7%), different-source infections (21.4%), or noninfectious causes (37.9%). All-cause one-year mortality was 46.9%, with no difference between the groups. Age (HR 1.02; 95%CI: 1.003 - 1.04; p = 0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.02 - 1.18; p = 0.01), discharge to a care facility during index admission (HR 1.6; 95%CI: 1.04 - 2.40; p = 0.03), and malignancy (HR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.5 - 3.7; p < 0.001) were associated with one-year mortality.

Conclusion: Thirty-day readmission in sepsis survivors was common and was associated with a 46.9% one-year mortality rate regardless of readmission cause. Quality improvement patient safety initiatives based on local institutional factors may allow for targeted interventions to improve sepsis survivor outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脓毒症幸存者30天内再入院:一项单中心回顾性研究的结果
目的:调查出院后30天内再入院的脓毒症幸存者队列,探讨基于不同再入院原因的1年死亡率,并确定在此时间段内再入院的所有脓毒症幸存者1年死亡率风险增加的相关因素。方法:这是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,涉及出院后30天内再次入院的成年脓毒症幸存者。根据再入院原因将患者分为3组:相同来源的感染性再入院、不同来源的感染性再入院和非感染性再入院。我们感兴趣的结果是一年的全因死亡率。采用Cox比例风险分析比较与一年死亡率相关的因素。结果:1666例败血症患者中,243例(14.5%)在30天内再次入院。再入院是由于同源感染(40.7%)、不同源感染(21.4%)或非感染性原因(37.9%)。一年全因死亡率为46.9%,两组间无差异。年龄(HR 1.02;95%ci: 1.003 - 1.04;p = 0.01),序贯器官衰竭评估评分(HR 1.1;95%ci: 1.02 - 1.18;p = 0.01),在指数入院期间出院(HR 1.6;95%ci: 1.04 - 2.40;p = 0.03),恶性肿瘤(HR 2.3;95%ci: 1.5 - 3.7;P < 0.001)与一年死亡率相关。结论:脓毒症幸存者30天再入院是常见的,无论再入院原因如何,其1年死亡率为46.9%。基于当地制度因素的质量改进患者安全举措可能允许有针对性的干预措施,以改善败血症幸存者的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A clinical guide to assess the immune response to sepsis: from bench to bedside. Comparison of the effectiveness of awake-prone positioning and high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure between different waves. Long-term mortality of Dutch COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care medicine: a retrospective analysis from a national quality registry. To: Goal-directed therapy guided by the FloTrac sensor in major surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andexanet alfa for the management of severe bleeding: what should critical care physicians know about it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1