We used a Bonferroni correction to address multiple testing; thus, for this analysis, Cronbach’s �� < 0.017 was considered significant. Next, we compared the StO2 parameters of interest for the outcomes of in-hospital mortality and SOFA scores �� 2 at www.selleckchem.com/products/wortmannin.html 24 hours. To assess the diagnostic accuracy for the StO2 parameters as a predictor of outcomes, we constructed receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) along with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used multivariate logistic regression models to obtain adjusted estimates for age, serum lactate and SBP and to identify the StO2 parameters and adjustor variables with the strongest independent associations with outcomes by using a stepwise backward elimination technique with forward examination of parameters eliminated after final model selection.

Throughout the analysis we used serum lactate level as a comparison predictor.Sample size calculationOur study was powered on the ability of our anticipated best StO2 readout (StO2 recovery slope) to discriminate the SEPSIS cohort from the SHOCK cohort. Based on previous studies, assuming mean changes in slope of 2.3 �� 1.3 for the SHOCK group and 3.2 �� 1.4 for the SEPSIS group, with a power of 90% and Cronbach’s �� set at 0.05, we calculated that approximately 60 patients per group were needed [11]. We also enrolled 50 uninfected controls as comparators for comparisons between controls and the sepsis groups.ResultsPatient characteristicsWe enrolled 170 patients in the study.

However, two patients in the SHOCK group were withdrawn from the study (one voluntary withdrawal and one with incomplete StO2 data), leaving a total of 168 patients in the study group. Of these, 58 had septic shock upon enrollment, 60 had sepsis without shock and 50 were uninfected control patients. The mortality rates were 38% for the SHOCK cohort, 5% for the SEPSIS cohort and 0% for the control group. The overall mean age for the population was 63 years, of whom 60% were males (Table (Table1).1). The SHOCK patients were older than the SEPSIS patients but similar in age to the control patients, since we matched these groups for age and sex. The distribution of comorbidities was similar in the three groups, but, as expected, the clinical characteristics (for example, blood pressure) and laboratory values (for example, serum lactate) commonly associated with increased severity of illness were worse in the SHOCK group.

Table 1Selected demographic and medical history variablesaDifferentiation of SHOCK, SEPSIS and control cohortsThe Cilengitide mean values for the three main StO2 parameters of interest, StO2 initial, ischemic slope and reperfusion slope, were calculated and compared for the different levels of sepsis syndrome and for controls upon enrollment (Table (Table22 and Figures Figures22 through through4).4).