Prospective cohort study examines short-term mortality in sepsis patients, revealing that older age increases risk, while sex has no impact.
Background: Despite advances in the diagnosis and management of sepsis and septic shock (SS), sepsis is still characterized by mortality rates of up to 30% at 30 days, underlining the need for optimized risk stratification. This study investigated the influence of age and sex on short-term mortality in patients with sepsis and SS. Methods: This prospective, single-center, observational study included consecutive patients with sepsis/SS treated at a medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a University Medical Center between 2019 and 2021. Sepsis and SS were defined according to Sepsis-3 criteria. Patients were stratified by sex and age (≤75 vs. >75 years and per one-year increase). The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Survival was assessed by Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 361 patients were included after screening 2596 ICU patients. Baseline characteristics were largely similar between men and women, whereas older patients had a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities and higher illness severity; 30-day mortality did not differ between men and women (51.9% vs. 52.3%; p = 0.948), whereas patients aged >75 years had higher 30-day mortality than younger patients (60.2% vs. 47.9%; p = 0.027). In multivariable Cox regression, age > 75 years remained independently associated with mortality (HR 1.391, 95% CI 1.021–1.896; p = 0.036), while sex was not (HR 1.016, 95% CI 0.740–1.396; p = 0.920). Sensitivity analysis using age as a continuous variable confirmed this association. Conclusions: In this prospective, registry-based, ICU cohort, older age was independently associated with higher short-term mortality in patients with sepsis or SS, whereas sex was not. Sex-related differences in treatment intensity and organ dysfunction markers were nevertheless observed and warrant further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hajji et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: