BackgroundSepsis is a global threat but insufficiently studied in Southeast Asia. The objective was to evaluate management, outcomes, adherence to sepsis bundles, and mortality prediction of maximum Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores in patients with community-acquired sepsis in Southeast Asia.MethodsWe prospectively recruited hospitalized adults within 24 h of admission with community-acquired infection at nine public hospitals in Indonesia (n = 3), Thailand (n = 3), and Vietnam (n = 3). In patients with organ dysfunction (total SOFA score ≥ 2), we analyzed sepsis management and outcomes and evaluated mortality prediction of the SOFA scores. Organ failure was defined as the maximum SOFA score ≥ 3 for an individual organ system.ResultsFrom December 2013 to December 2015, 454 adult patients presenting with community-acquired sepsis due to diverse etiologies were enrolled. Compliance with sepsis bundles within 24 h of admission was low: broad-spectrum antibiotics in 76% (344/454), ≥ 1500 mL fluid in 50% of patients with hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L (115/231), and adrenergic agents in 71% of patients with hypotension (135/191). Three hundred and fifty-five patients (78%) were managed outside of ICUs. Ninety-nine patients (22%) died. Total SOFA score on admission of those who subsequently died was significantly higher than that of those who survived (6.7 vs. 4.6, p < 0.001). The number of organ failures showed a significant correlation with 28-day mortality, which ranged from 7% in patients without any organ failure to 47% in those with failure of at least four organs (p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the total SOFA score for discrimination of mortality was 0.68 (95% CI 0.62–0.74).ConclusionsCommunity-acquired sepsis in Southeast Asia due to a variety of pathogens is usually managed outside the ICU and with poor compliance to sepsis bundles. In this population, calculation of SOFA scores is feasible and SOFA scores are associated with mortality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02157259. Registered 5 June 2014, retrospectively registered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-018-0279-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background There is a paucity of data regarding blood culture utilization and antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) infections in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, there has been a concern for increasing AMR infections among COVID-19 cases in LMICs. Here, we investigated epidemiology of AMR bloodstream infections (BSI) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Indonesian national referral hospital. Methods We evaluated blood culture utilization rate, and proportion and incidence rate of AMR-BSI caused by WHO-defined priority bacteria using routine hospital databases from 2019 to 2020. A patient was classified as a COVID-19 case if their SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result was positive. The proportion of resistance was defined as the ratio of the number of patients having a positive blood culture for a WHO global priority resistant pathogen per the total number of patients having a positive blood culture for the given pathogen. Poisson regression models were used to assess changes in rate over time. Results Of 60,228 in-hospital patients, 8,175 had at least one blood culture taken (total 17,819 blood cultures), giving a blood culture utilization rate of 30.6 per 1,000 patient-days. A total of 1,311 patients were COVID-19 cases. Blood culture utilization rate had been increasing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (both p < 0.001), and was higher among COVID-19 cases than non-COVID-19 cases (43.5 vs. 30.2 per 1,000 patient-days, p < 0.001). The most common pathogens identified were K. pneumoniae (23.3%), Acinetobacter spp. (13.9%) and E. coli (13.1%). The proportion of resistance for each bacterial pathogen was similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases (all p > 0.10). Incidence rate of hospital-origin AMR-BSI increased from 130.1 cases per 100,000 patient-days in 2019 to 165.5 in 2020 (incidence rate ratio 1.016 per month, 95%CI:1.016–1.017, p < 0.001), and was not associated with COVID-19 (p = 0.96). Conclusions In our setting, AMR-BSI incidence and etiology were similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases. Incidence rates of hospital-origin AMR-BSI increased in 2020, which was likely due to increased blood culture utilization. We recommend increasing blood culture utilization and generating AMR surveillance reports in LMICs to inform local health care providers and policy makers.

No abstract

BackgroundRoutine use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to prognosticate patients with sepsis is challenged by the requirement to perform numerous laboratory tests. The prognostic accuracy of the quick SOFA (qSOFA) without or with lactate criteria has not been prospectively investigated in low and middle income countries. We assessed the performance of simplified prognosis criteria using qSOFA-lactate criteria in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources, in comparison with SOFA prognosis criteria and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) screening criteria.MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted between March and December 2017 in adult patients with suspected bacterial infection visiting the emergency department of the Indonesian National Referral Hospital. Variables from sepsis prognosis and screening criteria and venous lactate concentration at enrolment were recorded. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. Prognostic accuracy was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each criterion in the prediction of in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 3026 patients screened, 1213 met the inclusion criteria. The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate criteria was 0.74 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.77). The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate was not statistically significantly different to the SOFA score (AUROC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78; p=0.462). The qSOFA-lactate was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI0.67 to 0.74; p=0.006) and SIRS criteria (0.57, 95% CI0.54 to 0.60; p<0.001).ConclusionsThe prognostic accuracy of the qSOFA-lactate criteria is as good as the SOFA score in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources. The performance of the qSOFA criteria is significantly lower than the qSOFA-lactate criteria and SOFA score.This abstract has been translated and adapted from the original English-language content. Translated content is provided on an "as is" basis. Translation accuracy or reliability is not guaranteed or implied. BMJ is not responsible for any errors and omissions arising from translation to the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ shall not incur any liability, including without limitation, liability for damages, arising from the translated text.