Infection
Database Of Community Acquired Infections Requiring Referral
Sep
Introduction
Globally, infectious diseases are major causes of morbidity and mortality, of which sepsis accounts for the majority of deaths.1 Lower respiratory infections remain one of the leading causes of death in both high- and low-income countries.1,2 Sepsis, a subset of underlying infection with the presence of organ failure, is a syndromic illness associated with high morbidity and mortality.3,4 Estimated global sepsis cases are 48.9 million per year accounting for up to 20% of global deaths.2
A Danish single-center population-based study in 2015 suggested an incidence of 731/100,000 person-years at risk of community-acquired sepsis of any severity with an observed 30-day mortality of 14%.5,6 Accordingly, another prospective single-center Danish study from 2021 found an incidence of sepsis (based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of ≥2 at admission) 721/100,000 person-years and a 28-day mortality of 13.8%.7 However, sepsis is likely underreported in Denmark.8 With an aging and increasingly comorbid population presenting to the emergency department (ED), the proportion of patients suffering from infectious diseases requiring hospital referral and treatment will likely rise. To characterize the burden of disease and identify populations of interest for future prospective studies on infectious diseases and sepsis in the ED, large-scale epidemiological studies are warranted.
The purpose of this database is to establish an infrastructure for epidemiological research as well as assessment of the treatment and care of community acquired infections, sepsis and septic shock among patients with a primary contact to the ED.
Perspectives on Infection and Sepsis Definitions
Sepsis has been described since antiquity.9 As a syndrome rather than a disease, clinical definitions of sepsis have been proposed by combining clinical and laboratory variables. Consensus definitions have been endorsed at international conferences held in 1991, 2001, and 2016 (Table 1).10–12 The initial sepsis definition was defined as a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) to infection in 199110 but revised in 2001 to incorporate organ damage thresholds but without changing the sepsis definition.11 Since then, the paradigm of sepsis pathophysiology has changed. SIRS was in 2016 ascertained an outdated paradigm with poor specificity and was abandoned as a definition of sepsis.12 Subsequently, sepsis was defined a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.12 In this definition SIRS was eliminated due to its low sensitivity and specificity in discriminating sepsis and noncomplicated infection. Organ dysfunction was defined as an acute increase in the total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of at least two points secondary to the infection which is associated with an in-hospital mortality of >10% (Table 2).12 Septic shock is a subset of sepsis characterized by circulatory failure, and carries a substantially increased risk of death compared to sepsis.12–14 To early identification of patients with suspected infection outside of critical care units and likely to develop sepsis, a new bedside tool with almost similar predictive validity for in-hospital mortality as SOFA outside the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was introduced.3 The qSOFA score consists of three variables based on vital parameters (systolic blood pressure, respiratory frequency) and a clinical judgment of cerebral status (Glasgow Coma Score). However, qSOFA had lower validity as a measure of organ dysfunction.3 Therefore, in the 2021 updated international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock, it was recommended against using qSOFA compared to SIRS, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) as a single screening tool for sepsis or septic shock.15
|
Table 1 Definitions of Sepsis |
 |
Table 2 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score12 |
Population-based epidemiological studies of community acquired infections, sepsis and septic shock are scarce and the few studies available have found differences in estimates likely reflecting differences in case definitions and quality of data.16 To determine whether an infection is present or not, is a clinical challenge. Furthermore, with the lack of a gold standard for accurate diagnosis and a heterogenous clinical presentation of sepsis, reported sepsis outcomes are prone to be biased. Table 3 provides an overview of the major epidemiological studies conducted during the past three decades.
 |
Table 3 Major Epidemiological Studies Reporting Sepsis Outcomes and Trends |
Materials and Methods
Aim of the Database
The purpose of the database is to conduct epidemiological research and to examine the treatment and care of community acquired infections, sepsis and septic shock.
Study Population and Setting
The database comprises all adult ED visits of patients (age ≥18 years) of the Capital and Zealand Regions of Denmark from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2022. The EDs provide 24-h acute emergency care for 2.6 million inhabitants with approximately 803,983 annual adult contacts and 257,238 annual admissions.39,40 All adults living in the catchment area are eligible for inclusion at the time of presentation to the EDs. In Denmark, all residents have access to free health care. Every resident is assigned a unique 10-digit personal civil registration number (CPR-number). This unique CPR-number enables accurate linkage between the Danish national registers41 and true population-based studies are hereby possible.41 Data on municipality of residence, migration-, and vital status, and date of birth are retrieved from The Danish Civil Registration System (DCRS) and linked to other registries and databases using the unique CPR-number.41
The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) cover all unique inpatient and outpatient clinical contacts at hospitals in Denmark collecting data regarding dates of admission, discharge, admitting departments and all primary and secondary discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 code system)42 from hospitals (except psychiatric departments and hospitals).43 Information regarding the population of persons living in the hospitals catchment area is available from Statistics Denmark website.44
The advantages and use of Danish registries in epidemiological studies as well as details of the Danish health care system has been described elsewhere.45 Patients in Denmark, who are hospitalized acutely, are admitted through the ED of a public hospital, either by their own initiative, referred by general practitioners, or directly by the emergency ambulance service. Patients experiencing more severe infections requiring acute treatment are often treated initially in the ED, including administration of antibiotics. Patients with more severe organ failure (respiratory failure, circulatory failure, etc) are treated in ICU.
Infection, Sepsis and Septic Shock Definitions
In this cohort, suspected infection is adapted and modified from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and defined clinically as a patient admitted to an ED who has any specimens obtained for culture from any anatomic site (irrespective of the result) and the administration of any antimicrobial agent starting within 24 h after arrival to the ED (Table 4).46 Accordingly, the sepsis case definition is adapted and modified from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).12,46 Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg or a serum lactate ≥18 mg/L (2 mmol/L).47 See Table 4 for complete definitions.
 |
Table 4 Definitions Used in the Database of Community: Acquired Infections in Eastern Denmark 2018–2022 |
Data Collection and Variables
Database Population
Since March 18, 2017 all patients records from the EDs and hospitals in the Capital and Zealand Region of Denmark are registered and available as electronic medical records (EMR) in Sundhedsplatforme provided by EPIC©.48 By electronic screening and the unique CPR-number it is possible to identify and retrieve information on all patients’ unique variables including demographic variables (municipality of residence, migration, and vital status, and date of birth), vital parameters, laboratory values, primary and secondary diagnoses, medication status at admission, and medication administered during hospitalization. As of January 1, 2022, 2,241,652 adult ED cases have been registered during the period of inclusion. Of these 451,825 are unique ED encounters of which suspected infection was registered in 60,316. Sepsis were present in 28,472 and 8027 were defined as septic shock.
Informatics
By joint venture cooperation between authors JGH/TS and the Capital Region of Denmark with EPIC/Health Data (Danish: Sundhedsdata) an electronic data warehouse has been established based on a user-friendly Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform (Danish: Forskerplatformen) in which EMR data – from Danish registries (DCRS and DNPR), laboratorial (registered with the use of the International System of Nomenclature, Properties, and Units (the NPU system) – and microbiological results (Laboratory information system at the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Herlev), medication (categorized according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, ATC codes) and vitals (triage and early warning score (EWS) data) are merged and made accessible for data and biostatistical analyses. Continuous update of data is possible after obtaining proper approvals.49
Variables
The database includes several descriptive variables, clinical and time dependent variables, in addition to outcome indicators (Table 5).
 |
Table 5 Variables Included in Database of Community Acquired Infections and Sepsis in Eastern Denmark (DCAISED) |
Descriptive variables include baseline demographics: age, gender, municipality of residence, migration, and vital status. Inpatient and outpatient diagnosis as well as discharge diagnoses and a main diagnosis from the index hospital contact. Clinical time-dependent variables based on patient data upon ED arrival includes time and date of arrival, triage level and time of assessment by ED personal and physician, time of microbiological requisition for culture and time of positive culture, as well as time of laboratory to analyze requisitions, and initiation of empiric antimicrobial treatment. Clinical variables include vital values and signs at presentation to the ED and during the course of hospitalization; systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, oxygen saturation and respiratory frequency, as well as clinical judgment of consciousness in terms of AVPU (“alert”, “voice responsive”, “pain responsive”, “unresponsive”) scale or GCS (Glasgow Coma Score). Laboratory variables for the entire hospitalization are included and consist, but are not limited to arterial blood gas variables (including lactate), hematological variables (eg hemoglobin, leucocytes, thrombocytes), inflammatory markers and acute phase proteins (eg C-reactive protein, procalcitonin) and organ-specific variables (eg creatinine, bilirubin). The laboratory variables and results are registered including the unique identification codes of the laboratory and the specific requisitioner. Microbiological variables include culture results from blood, urine, lower respiratory tract, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and other anatomical sites (eg pleural fluid, ascites, swabs from abscess cavities and skin lesions). Culture results include bacterial/fungal species and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns used to determine rates of appropriate therapy. In addition, specific polymerase chain (PCR) results are included (eg influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 from the respiratory tract) as well as serological tests.
Additional variables include medication administered upon inclusion and during the course of hospitalization. Special emphasis is on antimicrobial treatment (including antibacterials, antifungals, and antivirals), treatment with intravenous fluids and volumes administered, as well as vasopressor agents (ATC codes) (Table 5).
Computational covariates include Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), SOFA score, number and site of organ failure. CCI as a proxy for comorbid illness, are included for each enrolled patient upon index contact and computed based on diagnoses up to the previous 10 years before index contact.50 The SOFA score is computed from six variables, each representing an organ system (eg pulmonal or circulatory) for each included patient upon index contact. Each organ system is assigned a point value from 0 (normal) up to 4 (severe degree of dysfunction/failure) and ranges from 0 to 24 (Table 2).12,51 The individual organ systems and presence of degree of dysfunction/failure are based on laboratory variables, vasopressor administration and vital values as described above.
Outcome indicators include occurrence of infections, foci, severity of infections (localized, versus systemic) mortality proportions at 30, 90, and 365 days from index date. Number of organ failures based on SOFA score and ICU care during hospitalization. In case a patient has multiple ED events with the event of interest within the study period, only the first event is included for the outcome indicators.
Algorithm development and validation of definitions used for this cohort is planned as future objectives for investigation.
Completeness, Missing Data, and Data Validity
All patient data stored in the EMR software Sundhedsplatformen in the clinical setting is available in the database. The strength of this database is the detailed clinical data from all EDs and inpatient wards from all hospitals in the Capital and Zealand Region of Denmark. These two regions together account for half of the Danish population. The EMR data is independently recorded and based on data from the public Danish health care system (free tax-paid for all Danish residents), which is almost complete41,43,45 whereby the risk of selection bias and loss to follow-up is regarded as minimal. Moreover, the catchment area is well-defined in this part of Denmark bordered by the ocean due to the geographical characteristics (Figure 1).
 |
Figure 1 (A) Overview of the five regions of Denmark (Total population ~ 5.8 million). (1) North Denmark Region (population ~0.6 million), (2) Central Denmark Region (population ~1.3 million), (3) Region of Southern (population ~1.2 million) Denmark, (4) Zealand Region (population ~0.8 million) and (5) Capital Region of Denmark (population ~1.8 million). The DCAIED database comprise all adult ED visits of patients (age ≥18 years) in whom an infection is suspected, and the background population are inhabitants living in Regions 4 and 5 (eastern part of Denmark). The EDs provide all together 24-h acute emergency care for 2.6 million inhabitants. Red dots represent EDs in the Zealand region. (B) Overview of the Capital Region of Denmark. EDs are represented by red (24-h acute emergency care) and blue dots (day-time acute emergency care). The municipalities highlighted by green color, and the EDs situated within, are served by the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Herlev. |
The vital and laboratory parameters are registered prospectively for routine documentation and not for research purposes. We argue that laboratory parameters are missing in a systematic, nonrandom fashion as biochemical and microbiological samples are retrieved only when a health-care worker deemed it appropriate based on a clinical judgment.
Currently, microbiological data are available for North Zealand Hospitals and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital which are served by the same Department of Clinical Microbiology at Herlev Hospital (see Figure 1 for geographical location). It is planned to establish future cooperation’s with the other clinical microbiological departments in the regions. Electronic medical records are well implemented in all Danish Hospitals and EDs. Initiatives to expand the present database by a similar data-infrastructure application from the western part of Denmark (Figure 1) are relevant for research purposes on a national and international level. Presently, the technological solution for this infrastructure has yet to be established, as the software applications and companies hosting the electronic medical records across the regions in Denmark are different. Validation of data completeness and variables in the database is ongoing.
Permissions and Access for Other Researchers
The data retrieval is approved by the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (DHMA) (record number: 3-3013- 2976/1) and the legal department of the Capital Region of Denmark (record number: P-2019-626). We have sought a waived informed consent since the collection of data does not carry any risk for the involved patients. Permission from an ethical committee and patient consent is therefore not required for this type of database in Denmark. All data are handled according to national and regional laws and in compliance with relevant data protection and privacy regulations. Data are made available in an anonymized form to accomplish the DHMA regulations.
Suggestions for studies and collaboration can be directed to the corresponding author JGH at [email protected] and to author TS at [email protected]. Studies and ideas for collaboration will be evaluated according to feasibility, timeliness, and clinical relevance, among others, together with relevant representatives from the emergency departments, and hospitals in the Capital and Zealand Region of Denmark. Data on the individual-level will not be made publicly available in accordance with Danish law. Multidisciplinary collaborations with other Danish and international researchers are encouraged.
Perspectives on Infection and Sepsis Research and Reported Outcomes
Population-level epidemiological estimates of the incidence of infections and sepsis are largely based on administrative databases (hospital discharge codes, etc) (Table 3). These data are often advantageous in the context of large-scale epidemiologic research, as the data acquisition is less resource demanding. Studies based on administrative databases coherently describe an increasing incidence of sepsis during the past 30 years18,19,23–25,28–31,33,35,36,38,52 and declining mortality rates.19,24,25,29,31,33,35,36,38,52 However, administrative data is susceptible to bias by different thresholds and variability in diagnosing and coding practices of infectious diseases, sepsis and organ failures. Despite of similar trends in outcome, Gaieski et al31 found great variations in incidence and mortality estimates, based on four different administrative coding definitions.18,19,25,26 Moreover, changing coding practices over time caused by changing definitions of sepsis, increased focus (eg Surviving Sepsis Campaign),53 as well as reimbursement motivations in some countries all add to possible discordance in the reported estimates and challenges comparability of outcomes.
In contrast, clinical databases, as a data source for epidemiological studies, commonly include patients in a prospective protocolized manner, based on consistent and well-defined clinical inclusion criteria. The latter contrasts to administrative definitions based on less precise discharge codes. However, due to the critical nature of severe infections and presence of organ failure, most studies based on clinical databases have only included patients in the ICU setting and epidemiological estimates therefore are prone to selection bias. Studies based on this selection, prior to the consensus definition of 2016, report incidences of severe sepsis treated in the ICU of 46 to 95 per 100,000 population21,22,24,27 and mortality estimates between 28% and 48%.21,22,24,27,32 In the large epidemiological study by Kaukonen et al32 the proportion of sepsis admissions (relative to the total ICU admissions) increased from 7.2% to 11% from 2000–2012, whereas mortality rates decreased from 35.0% to 18.4%. In the study of similar size by Harrison et al24 hospital mortality for admissions with severe sepsis decreased from 48.3% in 1996 to 44.7% in 2004, but the total number of deaths increased with an estimated increase in incidence of severe sepsis of 46 in 1996 to 66 in 2003 per 100,000 and an associated number of hospital deaths per 100,000 population rising from 23 to 30. Due to the heterogeneity in epidemiological estimates and uncertainty about the accuracy of the reported trends, Rhee et al4 explored trends in incidence of sepsis and related mortality or discharge to hospice, based on clinical sepsis surveillance definition (sepsis-3) vs ICD-9-CM codes (claims data) and found outcomes based on the clinical surveillance definition stable between 2009–2014. Authors also stated that clinical data likely provide more objective estimates than claims-based data for sepsis surveillance.4
Comprehensive meta-analysis of observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) delineate great heterogenicity in studies included and questions the decline in mortality rates, as described by administrative data.54–57 In the study by Luhr et al56 44 RCTs were included and analyzed in the usual care arm during the period 2002–2016. They found a declining trend in 28-day mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock during the years 1991–2013, however, the trend was nonsignificant when controlling for severity of illness. In the study by Vincent et al exploring mortality outcome among ICU RCTs, significant heterogeneity was observed.57 Similarly, de Grooth et al54 found significant heterogeneity in the control groups of mortality rates, based on 65 septic shock RCTs and a nonsignificant decline in mortality rates 2006–2018. Lately, Bauer et al55 found a pooled septic shock estimate of 34.7% based on 170 studies, and mortality rates from RCTs were below previous prospective and retrospective cohort studies. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Whether significant epidemiological trends in outcomes of sepsis and septic shock exist is thus still a controversy and population-based estimates are of high relevance.
The number of patients presenting to EDs is growing in many countries with crowding issues as a consequence.58 In Denmark crowding has become a problem in the ICUs and internal medicine departments and it is expected to be a concern in Danish EDs in the near future.58 With an increasing population presenting to the ED, of which a substantial proportion are elderly comorbid, and often critically ill patients, the acute medical personnel and health care decision-makers seem to face a major challenge. As sepsis and septic shock are common and severe clinical entities, and likely underreported in Denmark,8 epidemiological characterization of community acquired infections requiring hospital referral, sepsis and septic shock is of importance to identity the burden of disease and characterize the population of interest in the ED.
Furthermore, the present database extends the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Register-based studies have delineated a decrease in hospitalization among non-COVID-19 disease groups during lockdown periods due to governmental mitigation strategies, whereas overall mortality rate ratios were higher between lockdown periods for non-COVID-19 respiratory diseases, cancer, pneumonia, and sepsis.59 Authors highlight the study limitations in clinical details on disease severity as well as comorbidities of people admitted to hospital in analyses of mortality. Due to the granular individual-level clinical data and longitudinal surveillance in the present database, it is possible to further delineate and address, potential confounding factors by examining pre- and post-pandemic outcome rates for specific conditions and community-acquired infectious diseases within the present cohort.
Recently, perpetual observational studies have been proposed as a study design to continuously collect clinical and demographical data for infectious disease entities.60 In our setting, the retrospectively available detailed clinical data results in a similar database based on routinely collected data without the need to enroll patients and thereby avoiding bias.
In all respects, Denmark is a perfect setting for this kind of population-based studies. The available detailed clinical data from the Capital and Zealand Region of Denmark, enables large-scale, precise, and detailed epidemiological research on these clinical conditions.
Conclusion
The Database of Community Acquired infections in Eastern Denmark is a new database established by data from EMR records provided by the software Sundhedsplatformen including all adult ED hospital contacts in the Eastern part of Denmark with the purpose of conducting large-scale epidemiological research on community-acquired infections requiring hospital referral. The database includes a large cohort, with granular data, which gives detailed and precise research opportunities on different aspects of severe community-acquired infections and sepsis. It is planned to expand, improve, and validate the data completeness.
Abbreviations
AVPU, alert, verbal, pain, unresponsive; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CPR, civil registration number; ED, emergency department; DHMA, Danish Health and Medicines Authority; GCS, Glasgow Coma Score; EMR, electronic medical records; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; ICD-9-CM, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification; ICD-10-CM, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification; MAP, mean arterial pressure; MEWS, Modified Early Warning Score; NEWS, National Early Warning Score; qSOFA, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SEPSIS-3, The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock; SIRS, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.
Disclosure
Professor Morten H Bestle reports personal fees from AM-Pharma B.V.; grants from Sygeforsikringen danmark and Novo Nordisk Foundation; contract research for AM-Pharma B.V. and Inotrem, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–1222. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9
2. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200–211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7
3. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762–774. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288
4. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241–1249. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.13836
5. Henriksen DP, Laursen CB, Jensen TG, Hallas J, Pedersen C, Lassen AT. Incidence rate of community-acquired sepsis among hospitalized acute medical patients-a population-based survey. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):13–21. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000611
6. Henriksen DP, Pottegård A, Laursen CB, et al. Intermediate-term and long-term mortality among acute medical patients hospitalized with community-acquired sepsis: a population-based study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2017;24(6):404–410. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000379
7. Abdullah SMOB, Sørensen RH, Nielsen FE. Prognostic Accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS for Mortality Among Emergency Department Patients with Infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:2763–2775. doi:10.2147/IDR.S304952
8. Perner A, Lassen AT, Schierbeck J, Storgaard M, Reiter N, Benfield T. Sygdomsbyrde og definitioner af sepsis hos voksne [Disease burden and definition of sepsis in adults]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2018;180(15):V09170685. Danish. Danish.
9. Funk DJ, Parrillo JE, Kumar A. Sepsis and septic shock: a history. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25(1):83–101. doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2008.12.003
10. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644–1655. doi:10.1378/chest.101.6.1644
11. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250–1256. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3B
12. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287
13. Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS, et al. Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(12):919–924. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70239-6
14. Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD, et al. Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from 2 independent cohorts. JAMA. 2014;312(1):90–92. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5804
15. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181–1247. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
16. Shappell CN, Klompas M, Rhee C. Surveillance strategies for tracking sepsis incidence and outcomes. J Infect Dis. 2020;222(Suppl 2):S74–S83. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa102
17. From the Centers for Disease Control. Increase in National Hospital Discharge Survey rates for septicemia–United States, 1979–1987. JAMA. 1990;263(7):937–938. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440070023007
18. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303–1310. doi:10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002
19. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, Moss M. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(16):1546–1554. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022139
20. Flaatten H. Epidemiology of sepsis in Norway in 1999. Crit Care. 2004;8(4):R180–R184. doi:10.1186/cc2867
21. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Lipman J, French C, Dobb G, Myburgh J. Adult-population incidence of severe sepsis in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(4):589–596. doi:10.1007/s00134-004-2157-0
22. Brun-Buisson C, Meshaka P, Pinton P, Vallet B. EPISEPSIS: a reappraisal of the epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(4):580–588. doi:10.1007/s00134-003-2121-4
23. Esper AM, Moss M, Lewis CA, Nisbet R, Mannino DM, Martin GS. The role of infection and comorbidity: factors that influence disparities in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(10):2576–2582. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000239114.50519.0E
24. Harrison DA, Welch CA, Eddleston JM. The epidemiology of severe sepsis in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 1996 to 2004: secondary analysis of a high quality clinical database, the ICNARC Case Mix Programme Database. Crit Care. 2006;10(2):R42. doi:10.1186/cc4854
25. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, Paz HL. Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5):1244–1250. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000261890.41311.E9
26. Wang HE, Shapiro NI, Angus DC, Yealy DM. National estimates of severe sepsis in United States emergency departments. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(8):1928–1936. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000277043.85378.C1
27. Karlsson S, Varpula M, Ruokonen E, et al. Incidence, treatment, and outcome of severe sepsis in ICU-treated adults in Finland: the Finnsepsis study. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(3):435–443. doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0504-z
28. Wilhelms SB, Huss FR, Granath G, Sjöberg F. Assessment of incidence of severe sepsis in Sweden using different ways of abstracting International Classification of Diseases codes: difficulties with methods and interpretation of results. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(6):1442–1449. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181de4406
29. Kumar G, Kumar N, Taneja A, et al. Nationwide trends of severe sepsis in the 21st century (2000–2007). Chest. 2011;140(5):1223–1231. doi:10.1378/chest.11-0352
30. Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Shieh M-S, Pekow PS, Steingrub JS, Lindenauer PK. What is the best method for estimating the burden of severe sepsis in the United States? J Crit Care. 2012;27(4):414.e1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.02.004
31. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1167–1174. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8
32. Kaukonen K-M, Bailey M, Suzuki S, Pilcher D, Bellomo R. Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1308–1316. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2637
33. Bouza C, López-Cuadrado T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Amate-Blanco JM. Epidemiology and recent trends of severe sepsis in Spain: a nationwide population-based analysis (2006–2011). BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0717-7
34. Kadri SS, Rhee C, Strich JR, et al. Estimating ten-year trends in septic shock incidence and mortality in United States academic medical centers using clinical data. Chest. 2017;151(2):278–285. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.07.010
35. Lee C-C, Yo C-H, Lee M-TG, et al. Adult sepsis – A nationwide study of trends and outcomes in a population of 23 million people. J Infect. 2017;75(5):409–419. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2017.08.012
36. Rubens M, Saxena A, Ramamoorthy V, et al. Increasing sepsis rates in the United States: results from National Inpatient Sample, 2005 to 2014. J Intensive Care Med. 2020;35(9):858–868. doi:10.1177/0885066618794136
37. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mellhammar L, Rose N, et al. Incidence and mortality of hospital- and ICU-treated sepsis: results from an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(8):1552–1562. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06151-x
38. Oh S-Y, Cho S, Kim GH, et al. Incidence and Outcomes of Sepsis in Korea: a Nationwide Cohort Study From 2007 to 2016. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(12):e993–e998. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004041
39. The Danish database for acute and emergency hospital contacts. Available from: https://www.rkkp.dk/kvalitetsdatabaser/databaser/databasen-for-akutte-hospitalskontakter/om-databasen/. Accessed July 8, 2023.
40. Danish Health Authority. Anbefalinger for organisering af den akutte sundhedsindsats – Planlægningsgrundlag for de kommende 10 år [Recommendations for the organization of the emergency health care – Planning basis for the next 10 years]. Available from: https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2020/Anbefalinger-for-organisering-af-den-akutte-sundhedsindsats. Accessed July 8, 2023.
41. Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT. The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29(8):541–549. doi:10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3
42. Andersen TF, Madsen M, Jørgensen J, Mellemkjær L, Olsen JH. The Danish National Hospital Register: a valuable source of data for modern health sciences. Dan Med Bull. 1999;46(3):263–268.
43. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7_suppl):30–33. doi:10.1177/1403494811401482
44. Statistics Denmark. Available from: https://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1440. Accessed: July 8, 2023.
45. Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Adelborg K, et al. The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records. Clin Epidemiol. 2019;11:563–591. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S179083
46. Hospital Toolkit for Adult Sepsis Surveillance – Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotions. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/pdfs/Sepsis-Surveillance-Toolkit-Mar-2018_508.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2023.
47. Rubenfeld GD, Singer M, Phillips GS, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock. JAMA. 2016;315(8):775. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0289
48. Electronic Medical Records (Sundhedsplatformen) provided by EPIC©, International Offices: Copenhagen, Address: Sundkrogsgade 19 st, 2100 København Ø, Denmark. Available from: https://www.epic.com/contact. Accessed July 8, 2023.
49. The Capital Region of Denmark. Forskningsprojekter baseret på registerdata og eller journaldata [Research projects based on register data and/or health records]. Available from: https://www.regionh.dk/til-fagfolk/Forskning-og-innovation/Hvilke-tilladelser-kraever-dit-projekt-/Sider/Forskningsprojekter-baseret-på-registerdata-og-journaldata.aspx. Accessed July 8, 2023.
50. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676–682. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq433
51. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–710. doi:10.1007/BF01709751
52. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mikolajetz A, Schwarzkopf D, et al. Challenges in assessing the burden of sepsis and understanding the inequalities of sepsis outcomes between National Health Systems: secular trends in sepsis and infection incidence and mortality in Germany. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(11):1826–1835. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5377-4
53. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):858–873. doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000117317.18092.e4
54. de Grooth H-J, Postema J, Loer SA, Parienti -J-J, Oudemans-van Straaten HM, Girbes AR. Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(3):311–322. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5134-8
55. Bauer M, Gerlach H, Vogelmann T, Preissing F, Stiefel J, Adam D. Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):239. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-02950-2
56. Luhr R, Cao Y, Söderquist B, Cajander S. Trends in sepsis mortality over time in randomised sepsis trials: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality in the control arm, 2002–2016. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):241. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2528-0
57. Vincent J-L, Jones G, David S, Olariu E, Cadwell KK. Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):196. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2478-6
58. Pines JM, Hilton JA, Weber EJ, et al. International perspectives on emergency department crowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1358–1370. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01235.x
59. Bodilsen J, Nielsen PB, Søgaard M, et al. Hospital admission and mortality rates for non-covid diseases in Denmark during covid-19 pandemic: nationwide population based cohort study. BMJ. 2021;373:n1135. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1135
60. Hassoun-Kheir N, van Werkhoven CH, Dunning J, et al. Perpetual observational studies: new strategies to support efficient implementation of observational studies and randomized trials in infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(12):1528–1532. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2022.07.024
