4.6 Article

The significance of non-sustained hypotension in emergency department patients with sepsis

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1261-1264

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1448-x

Keywords

Hypotension; Sepsis; Shock; Mortality; Emergency medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies have documented the incidence and significance of non-sustained hypotension in emergency department (ED) patients with sepsis. We hypothesized that ED non-sustained hypotension increases risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. ED patients aged > 17 years admitted to the hospital with explicitly defined sepsis were prospectively identified. Evidence of systemic inflammation (> 1 criteria) and suspicion for infection. Patients with overt shock were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Seven hundred patients with sepsis were enrolled, including 150 (21%) with non-sustained hypotension. The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was present in 10% (15/150) of patients with non-sustained hypotension compared with 3.6% (20/550) of patients with no hypotension. The presence of non-sustained hypotension resulted in three times the risk of mortality than no hypotension (risk ratio = 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.2). Patients with a lowest systolic blood pressure < 80 mmHg had a threefold increase in mortality rate compared with patients with a lowest systolic blood pressure a parts per thousand yen80 mmHg (5 vs. 16%). In logistic regression analysis, non-sustained hypotension was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Non-sustained hypotension in the ED confers a significantly increased risk of death during hospitalization in patients admitted with sepsis. These data should impart reluctance to dismiss non-sustained hypotension, including a single measurement, as not clinically significant or meaningful.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available