Abstract

Introduction Despite significant advances in the field of medicine, sepsis is constantly growing as a major public health concern. The global epidemic of sepsis imposes a significant economic burden on healthcare systems world-over. Furthermore, its high prevalence in society is inevitably paralleled by an excessive mortality rate, with approximately six million deaths reported every year. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare, the management of acutely septic patients against outcomes in a tertiary teaching institution in Pakistan versus a similar one in the United Kingdom. Methods This study was a dual-centred, retrospective comparative analysis comparing all patients admitted through the emergency department at the respective tertiary centres. Patient details were collected and compared across the two sites to evaluate the effect of individual characteristics on prognosis. The outcomes of these presentations were analysed by comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, admission to the ICU or discharge. Results The total number of patients identified as having sepsis was 60 in the Pakistan cohort, and 92 in the Aberdeen cohort. No significant difference was found when comparing genders, and the results of basic observations were largely similar at presentation. Twenty-five per cent (25%) (n=38) of the total study population were deemed to have a poor outcome at 3 days, but 50% of the Pakistan cohort was deemed to have a poor outcome. Conclusion Managing sepsis has developed significantly in recent years, but most of this development was implemented in high-income countries. There was a significant delay in time to resuscitate septic patients in Pakistan, with significantly raised three-day morbidity and mortality. There is a need for further comparative studies of the management of sepsis in Pakistan and other low-income countries to identify the problems and tackle obstacles on every level of the healthcare system.

Keywords: global health policy; health education & awareness; mortality rate in sepsis; resource-poor setting; surviving sepsis guidelines.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.