Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 16, 2026
A Reproducible Intensive Care Unit-Oriented Endotoxin Model in Rats
Published on: February 20, 2021
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis
Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen1, Michael Bailey, David Pilcher
1From the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University (K.-M.K., M.B., D.P., D.J.C., R.B.), the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation (D.P.), and the Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Hospital (D.P.), Melbourne, VIC, and the Intensive Care Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC (R.B.) - all in Australia; and the Neurosurgical Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki (K.-M.K.).
Background:
The consensus definition of severe sepsis requires suspected or proven infection, organ failure, and signs that meet two or more criteria for the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We aimed to test the sensitivity, face validity, and construct validity of this approach.
Methods:
We studied data from patients from 172 intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand from 2000 through 2013. We identified patients with infection and organ failure and categorized them according to whether they had signs meeting two or more SIRS criteria (SIRS-positive severe sepsis) or less than two SIRS criteria (SIRS-negative severe sepsis). We compared their characteristics and outcomes and assessed them for the presence of a step increase in the risk of death at a threshold of two SIRS criteria.
Results:
Of 1,171,797 patients, a total of 109,663 had infection and organ failure. Among these, 96,385 patients (87.9%) had SIRS-positive severe sepsis and 13,278 (12.1%) had SIRS-negative severe sepsis. Over a period of 14 years, these groups had similar characteristics and changes in mortality (SIRS-positive group: from 36.1% [829 of 2296 patients] to 18.3% [2037 of 11,119], P<0.001; SIRS-negative group: from 27.7% [100 of 361] to 9.3% [122 of 1315], P<0.001). Moreover, this pattern remained similar after adjustment for baseline characteristics (odds ratio in the SIRS-positive group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 0.97; odds ratio in the SIRS-negative group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.98; P=0.12 for between-group difference). In the adjusted analysis, mortality increased linearly with each additional SIRS criterion (odds ratio for each additional criterion, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.15; P<0.001) without any transitional increase in risk at a threshold of two SIRS criteria.
Conclusions:
The need for two or more SIRS criteria to define severe sepsis excluded one in eight otherwise similar patients with infection, organ failure, and substantial mortality and failed to define a transition point in the risk of death. (Funded by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre.).
More Related Videos
07:03Standardized Colon Ascendens Stent Peritonitis in Rats - a Simple, Feasible Animal Model to Induce Septic Acute Kidney Injury
Published on: February 15, 2022
07:30Design of Cecal Ligation and Puncture and Intranasal Infection Dual Model of Sepsis-Induced Immunosuppression
Published on: June 15, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
01:29Staphylococcal Skin Infections
01:14SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...
01:30Inflammatory Response I: Vascular and Cellular
01:21Stress Response System
Alarm stage
In the alarm stage, the body's...
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies