The prevalence and outcomes of sepsis in adult patients in two hospitals in Malawi

16Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

There are an estimated 19.4 million sepsis cases every year, many of them in low-income countries. The newly adopted definition of sepsis uses Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA), a score which is not feasible in many low-resource settings. A simpler quick-SOFA (qSOFA) based solely on vital signs score has been devised for identification of suspected sepsis. This study aimed to determine in-hospital prevalence and outcomes of sepsis, as defined as suspected infection and a qSOFA score of 2 or more, in two hospitals in Malawi. The secondary aim was to evaluate qSOFA as a predictor of mortality. A cross-sectional study of adult in-patients in two hospitals in Malawi was conducted using prospectively collected single-day point-prevalence data and in-hospital follow-up. Of 1,135 participants, 81 (7.1%) had sepsis. Septic patients had a higher hospital mortality rate (17.5%) than non-septic infected patients (9.0%, p = 0.027, odds ratio 2.1 [1.1–4.3]), although the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics. For in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection, qSOFA 3 2 had a sensitivity of 31.8%, specificity of 82.1%, a positive predictive value of 17.5%, and a negative predictive value of 91.0%. In conclusion, sepsis is common and is associated with a high risk of death in admitted patients in hospitals in Malawi. In low-resource settings, qSOFA score that uses commonly available vital signs data may be a tool that could be used for identifying patients at risk—both for those with and without a suspected infection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kayambankadzanja, R. K., Schell, C. O., Namboya, F., Phiri, T., Banda-Katha, G., Mndolo, S. K., … Baker, T. (2020). The prevalence and outcomes of sepsis in adult patients in two hospitals in Malawi. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(4), 896–901. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0320

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free