Comparison of children receiving emergent sepsis care by mode of arrival

ObjectiveTo determine if differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes exist between children with sepsis who arrive by emergency medical services (EMS) versus their own mode of transport (self-transport).MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) of two large children's hospitals and treated for sepsis from November 2013 to June 2017. Presentation, ED treatment, and outcomes, primarily time to first bolus and first parental antibiotic, were compared between those transported via EMS versus patients who were self-transported.ResultsOf the 1813 children treated in the ED for sepsis, 1452 were self-transported and 361 were transported via EMS. The EMS group were more frequently male, of black race, and publicly insured than the self-transport group. The EMS group was more likely to have a critical triage category, receive initial care in the resuscitation suite (51.9 vs. 22%), have hypotension at ED presentation (14.4 vs. 5.4%), lactate >2.0 mmol/L (60.6 vs. 40.8%), vasoactive agents initiated in the ED (8.9 vs. 4.9%), and to be intubated in the ED (14.4 vs. 2.8%). The median time to first IV fluid bolus was faster in the EMS group (36 vs. 57 min). Using Cox LASSO to adjust for potential covariates, time to fluids remained faster for the EMS group (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12, 1.42). Time to antibiotics, ICU LOS, 3- or 30-day mortality rates did not differ, yet median hospital LOS was significantly longer in those transported by EMS versus self-transported (6.5 vs. 5.3 days).ConclusionsChildren with sepsis transported by EMS are a sicker population of children than those self-transported on arrival and had longer hospital stays. EMS transport was associated with earlier in-hospital fluid resuscitation but no difference in time to first antibiotic. Improved prehospital recognition and care is needed to promote adherence to both prehospital and hospital-based sepsis resuscitation benchmarks.     

Severe sepsis and septic shock in patients transported by prehospital services versus walk in patients to the emergency department

BackgroundSepsis is a leading cause of death in the hospital for which aggressive treatment is recommended to improve patient outcomes. It is possible that sepsis patients brought in by emergency medical services (EMS) have a unique advantage in the emergency department (ED) which could improve sepsis bundle compliance.ObjectiveTo evaluate patient care processes and outcome differences between severe sepsis and septic shock patients in the emergency department who were brought in by EMS compared to non-EMS patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of all severe sepsis and septic shock patients who declared in the ED during January 2012 thru December 2014. We compared differences in patient characteristics, patient care processes, sepsis bundle compliance metrics, and outcomes between both groups.ResultsOf the 1066 patients included in the study, 387 (36.6%) were brought in by EMS and 679 (63.7%) patients arrived via non-EMS transport. In the multivariate regression model, time of triage to sepsis declaration (coeff = −0.406; 95% CI = −0.809, −0.003; p = 0.048) and time of triage to physician (coeff = −0.543; 95% CI = −0.864, −0.221; p = 0.001) was significantly shorter for EMS patients. We found no statistical difference in adjusted individual sepsis compliance metrics, overall bundle compliance, or mortality between both groups.ConclusionEMS transported patients have quicker sepsis declaration times and are seen sooner by ED providers. However, we found no statistical difference in bundle compliance or patient outcomes between walk in patients and EMS transported patients.     

Opportunities for Emergency Medical Services care of sepsis

Objective

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems play key roles in the rapid identification and treatment of critical illness such as trauma, myocardial infarction and stroke. EMS often provides care for sepsis, a life-threatening sequelae of infection. In this study of Emergency Department patients admitted to the hospital with an infection, we characterized the patients receiving initial care by EMS.

Methods

We prospectively studied patients with suspected infection presenting to a 50,000 visit urban, academic ED from September 16, 2005-September 30, 2006. We included patients who had abnormal ED vital signs or required hospital admission. We identified patients that received EMS care. Between EMS and non-EMS patients, we compared patient age, sex, nursing home residency, vital signs, comorbidities, source of infection, organ dysfunction, sepsis severity and mortality. We analyzed the data using univariate odds ratios, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Of 4613 ED patients presenting with serious infections, 1576 (34.2%) received initial EMS care. The mortality rate among those transported by EMS was 126/1576 (8.0%) compared to 67/3037 (2.2%) in those who were not. Adjusted mortality was higher for EMS (OR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.6). Of patients who qualified for protocolized sepsis care in the ED, 99/162 (61.1%) were transported via EMS. EMS patients were more likely to present with severe sepsis (OR 3.9; 3.4-4.5) or septic shock (OR 3.6; 2.6-5.0). EMS patients had higher sepsis acuity (mortality in ED sepsis score 6 vs. 3, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

EMS provides initial care for over one-third of ED infection patients, including the majority of patients with severe sepsis, septic shock, and those who ultimately die. EMS systems may offer important opportunities for advancing sepsis diagnosis and care.     

Presentation and outcomes of end stage liver disease patients presenting with septic shock to the emergency department

BackgroundPatients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) are particularly vulnerable to sepsis. ESLD patients are often excluded from controlled sepsis trials and more data are needed to guide the management of this population.ObjectiveTo describe the clinical factors and outcomes of patients with ESLD presenting to the emergency department (ED) with septic shock.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients registered in our dedicated ED adult septic shock pathway. All patients registered between January 2014 and May 2016 were included. Clinical and treatment variables for ESLD patients were compared with non-ESLD patients. A second analysis assessed ESLD survivors compared to non-survivors.Results2,584 septic shock patients were enrolled. ESLD was present in 6.2% (n = 161) of patients. Patients with ESLD had higher mortality compared to patients without ESLD 36.6% vs 21.2% (p < 0.001). ESLD patients were more likely to be younger, female, obese, and have other comorbidities. ESLD patients exhibited lower temperature, higher lactate, and higher incidence of acute kidney injury. There was no difference in antibiotics or fluid resuscitation between groups. ESLD patients received more ED vasopressor support. Among ESLD septic shock patients, maximum lactate and presence of pneumonia were independently associated with death.ConclusionsPatients with ESLD comprise a small but important subgroup of patients with ED septic shock that experience high mortality compared to patients without ESLD. Maximum ED lactate and pneumonia as the source of sepsis are independently associated with adverse outcome and may be used for early recognition of high-risk ESLD sepsis patients.     

Time to antibiotic administration: Sepsis alerts called in emergency department versus in the field via emergency medical services

IntroductionThe Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) identifies patients with “severe sepsis” and mandates antibiotics within a specific time window. Rapid time to administration of antibiotics may improve patient outcomes. The goal of this investigation was to compare time to antibiotic administration when sepsis alerts are called in the emergency department (ED) with those called in the field by emergency medical services (EMS).MethodsThis was a multi-center, retrospective review of patients designated as sepsis alerts in ED or via EMS in the field, presenting to four community emergency departments over a six-month period.Results507 patients were included, 419 in the ED alert group and 88 in the field alert group. Mean time to antibiotic administration was significantly faster in the field alert group when compared to the ED alert group (48.5 min vs 64.5 min, p < 0.001). Patients were more likely to receive antibiotics within 60 min of ED arrival in the field alert group (59.1% vs 44%, p = 0.01). Secondary outcomes including mortality, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, sepsis diagnosis on admission, Clostridioides difficile infection rates, fluid bolus utilization, anti-MRSA antibiotic utilization rates, and anti-Pseudomonal antibiotic utilization rates were not found to be significantly different.ConclusionsSepsis alerts called in the field via EMS may decrease time to antibiotics and increase the likelihood of antibiotic administration occurring within 60 min of arrival when compared to those called in the ED.     

Out-of-hospital characteristics and care of patients with severe sepsis: A cohort study

PurposeEarly recognition and treatment in severe sepsis improve outcomes. However, out-of-hospital patient characteristics and emergency medical services (EMS) care in severe sepsis is understudied. Our goals were to describe out-of-hospital characteristics and EMS care in patients with severe sepsis and to evaluate associations between out-of-hospital characteristics and severity of organ dysfunction in the emergency department (ED).Materials and MethodsWe performed a secondary data analysis of existing data from patients with severe sepsis transported by EMS to an academic medical center. We constructed multivariable linear regression models to determine if out-of-hospital factors are associated with serum lactate and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) in the ED.ResultsTwo hundred sixteen patients with severe sepsis arrived by EMS. Median serum lactate in the ED was 3.0 mmol/L (interquartile range, 2.0-5.0) and median SOFA score was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6). Sixty-three percent (135) of patients were transported by advanced life support providers and 30% (62) received intravenous fluid. Lower out-of-hospital Glasgow Coma Scale score was independently associated with elevated serum lactate (P < .01). Out-of-hospital hypotension, greater respiratory rate, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale score were associated with greater SOFA (P < .01).ConclusionsOut-of-hospital fluid resuscitation occurred in less than one third of patients with severe sepsis, and routinely measured out-of-hospital variables were associated with greater serum lactate and SOFA in the ED.     

qSOFA Has Poor Sensitivity for Prehospital Identification of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

Objectives: Sepsis is a common and deadly disease process for which early recognition and intervention can significantly improve clinical outcomes. Despite this, sepsis remains underrecognized and therefore undertreated in the prehospital setting. Recent recommendations by the Society of Critical Care and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine advocate use of the qSOFA (quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment) score in non-ICU settings to screen for septic patients at greater risk for poor outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 for prehospital identification of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Emergency Department (ED) patients with confirmed or suspected infection were classified as having infection without sepsis (n = 71), sepsis (n = 38), or severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 43), where designation of severe sepsis/septic shock required evidence of end-organ dysfunction, hypoperfusion (lactate > 2), or vasopressor requirement. Results: We found that a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 was 16.3% sensitive (95% CI 6.8–30.7%) and 97.3% specific (95% CI 92.1–99.4%) for patients ultimately confirmed to have severe sepsis/septic shock in the ED. Adding an additional point to the prehospital qSOFA score for a pulse > 100, nursing home residence, age > 50, or reported fever increased the sensitivity to 58.1% (95% CI 42.1–73.0%) and decreased the specificity to 78.0% (95% CI 69.0–85.4%). During their ED stay, approximately two-thirds of patients meeting severe sepsis/septic shock criteria eventually met qSOFA criteria with a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% CI 51.5–80.9) and specificity of 86.2% (95% CI 78.3–92). Failure to meet qSOFA criteria prehospital was predominantly due to a systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate that did not yet meet predetermined thresholds. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the dynamic nature of sepsis can make sensitive detection difficult in the prehospital setting, although combining qSOFA with other clinical information (age, nursing home status, fever, and tachycardia) can identify more patients with sepsis who may benefit from time critical interventions.     

Derivation of a screen to identify severe sepsis and septic shock in the ED-BOMBARD vs. SIRS and qSOFA

Study objectiveTo predict severe sepsis/septic shock in ED patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients ≥18 admitted to two urban hospitals with a combined ED census of 162,000.Study cases included patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted via the ED. Controls comprised admissions without severe sepsis/septic shock. Using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction rule was constructed. The model's AUROC was internally validated using 1000 bootstrap samples.Results143 study and 286 control patients were evaluated. Features predictive of severe sepsis/septic shock included: SBP ≤ 110 mm Hg, shock index/SI ≥ 0.86, abnormal mental status or GCS < 15, respirations ≥ 22, temperature ≥ 38C, assisted living facility residency, disabled immunity.Two points were assigned to SI and temperature with other features assigned one point (mnemonic: BOMBARD). BOMBARD was superior to SIRS criteria (AUROC 0.860 vs. 0.798, 0.062 difference, 95% CI 0.022–0.102) and qSOFA scores (0.860 vs. 0.742, 0.118 difference, 95% CI 0.081–0.155) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was more sensitive than SIRS ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 49%, 25.9% difference, 95% CI 18.7–33.1) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 33.6%, 41.2% difference, 95% CI 33.2–49.3) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was superior to SIRS ≥ 2 (76% vs. 45%, 32% difference, 95% CI 10–50) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (76% vs. 29%, 47% difference, 95% CI 25–63) at predicting sepsis mortality.ConclusionBOMBARD was more accurate than SIRS and qSOFA at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock and sepsis mortality.     

Timing of antibiotics,volume, and vasoactive infusions in children with sepsis admitted to intensive care

IntroductionEarly administration of antibiotics for sepsis, and of fluid boluses and vasoactive agents for septic shock, is recommended. Evidence for this in children is limited.MethodsThe Alberta Sepsis Network prospectively enrolled eligible children admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) with sepsis from 04/2012-10/2014. Demographics, severity of illness, and outcomes variables were prospectively entered into the ASN database after deferred consent. Timing of interventions were determined by retrospective chart review using a study manual and case-report-form. We aimed to determine the association of intervention timing and outcome in children with sepsis. Univariate (t-test and Fisher’s Exact) and multiple linear regression statistics evaluated predictors of outcomes of PICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilation days.ResultsSeventy-nine children, age median 60 (IQR 22–133) months, 40 (51 %) female, 39 (49 %) with severe underlying co-morbidity, 44 (56 %) with septic shock, and median PRISM-III 10.5 [IQR 6.0-17.0] were enrolled. Most patients presented in an ED: 36 (46 %) at an outlying hospital ED, and 21 (27 %) at the Children’s Hospital ED. Most infections were pneumonia with/without empyema (42, 53 %), meningitis (11, 14 %), or bacteremia (10, 13 %). The time from presentation to acceptable antibiotic administration was a median of 115.0 [IQR 59.0-323.0] minutes; 20 (25 %) of patients received their antibiotics in the first hour from presentation. Independent predictors of PICU LOS were PRISM-III, and severe underlying co-morbidity, but not time to antibiotics. In the septic shock subgroup, the volume of fluid boluses given in the first 2 hours was independently associated with longer PICU LOS (effect size 0.22 days; 95 % CI 0.5, 0.38; per ml/kg). Independent predictors of ventilator days were PRISM-III score and severe underlying co-morbidity. In the septic shock subgroup, volume of fluid boluses in the first 2 hours was independently associated with more ventilator days (effect size 0.09 days; 95 % CI 0.02, 0.15; per ml/kg).ConclusionHigher volume of early fluid boluses in children with sepsis and septic shock was independently associated with longer PICU LOS and ventilator days. More study on the benefits and harms of fluid bolus therapy in children are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1010-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Implementation of an adult code sepsis protocol and its impact on SEP-1 core measure perfect score attainment in the ED

IntroductionTimely management of sepsis has become an urgent concern among most hospitals. Institutions have been searching for unique ways to increase the quality of care and timely adherence to proven therapies. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of an Adult Code Sepsis Protocol on the rate of SEP-1 perfect score attainment (PSA) among patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with severe sepsis or septic shock, as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study in a 35-bed tertiary care hospital ED from December 2016 to February 2018. Adults (≥18 years of age) who met the CMS-case definition of severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to the ED either prior to or after implementation of an Adult Code Sepsis Protocol were included.ResultsThe primary outcome of SEP-1 PSA, which was abstracted in an all-or-none fashion, increased from 30.7% to 71.3% (p < 0.001). Inpatient mortality was reduced from 4% to 0% (p = 0.011) after protocol implementation. Protocol initiation also resulted in a significant reduction in both time to initiation of appropriate, empiric and effective antimicrobial therapy, based on culture results by 48 and 111 min, respectively (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes including ICU length-of-stay, readmission, or economic outcome measures.ConclusionsThe addition of an Adult Code Sepsis Protocol in the ED significantly increased the rate of SEP-1 PSA, reduced inpatient mortality, and improved the time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy.     

Sepsis alerts in EMS and the results of pre-hospital ETCO2

BackgroundField sepsis alerts have the ability to expedite initial ED sepsis treatment. Our hypothesis is that in patients that meet EMS sepsis alert criteria there is a strong relationship between prehospital end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) readings and the outcome of diagnosed infection.MethodsIn 2014, our EMS service initiated a protocol requiring hospitals to receive notification of a “sepsis alert” on all suspected sepsis patients. The EMS service transports 70,000 patients/year to a number of urban centers. All patients transported to our major urban teaching hospital by our EMS service in one year in which a sepsis alert was announced were included in this study. The primary outcome variable was diagnosed infection and secondary outcomes were hospital admission, ICU admission and mortality. Positive lactate was defined as >4.0 mmol/L. ROC curve analysis was used to define the best cutoff for ETCO2.Results351 patients were announced as EMS sepsis alert patients and transported to our center over a one year period. Positive outcomes were as follows: diagnosed infection in 28% of patients, hospital admission in 63% and ICU admission in 11%. The correlation between lactate and ETCO2 was −0.45. A ROC curve analysis of ETCO2 vs. lactate >4 found that the best cutoff to predict a high lactate was an ETCO2 of 25 or less, which was considered a positive ETCO2 (AUC = 0.73). 27% of patients had a positive ETCO2 and 24% had a positive lactate. A positive ETCO2 predicted a positive lactate with 76% accuracy, 63% sensitivity and 80% specificity. 27% of those with a positive ETCO2 and 44% of those with a positive lactate had a diagnosed infection. 59% of those with a positive ETCO2 and 89% of those with a positive lactate had admission to the hospital. 15% of those with a positive ETCO2 and 18% of those with a positive lactate had admission to the ICU. Neither lactate nor ETCO2 were predictive of an increased risk for diagnosed infection, hospital admission or ICU admission in this patient population.ConclusionWhile ETCO2 predicted the initial ED lactate levels it did not predict diagnosed infection, admission to the hospital or ICU admission in our patient population but did predict mortality.     

Comparison of SIRS,qSOFA, and NEWS for the early identification of sepsis in the Emergency Department

ObjectivesThe increasing use of sepsis screening in the Emergency Department (ED) and the Sepsis-3 recommendation to use the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) necessitates validation. We compared Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), qSOFA, and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) for the identification of severe sepsis and septic shock (SS/SS) during ED triage.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis from an urban, tertiary-care academic center that included 130,595 adult visits to the ED, excluding dispositions lacking adequate clinical evaluation (n = 14,861, 11.4%). The SS/SS group (n = 930) was selected using discharge diagnoses and chart review. We measured sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) for the detection of sepsis endpoints.ResultsNEWS was most accurate for triage detection of SS/SS (AUROC = 0.91, 0.88, 0.81), septic shock (AUROC = 0.93, 0.88, 0.84), and sepsis-related mortality (AUROC = 0.95, 0.89, 0.87) for NEWS, SIRS, and qSOFA, respectively (p < 0.01 for NEWS versus SIRS and qSOFA). For the detection of SS/SS (95% CI), sensitivities were 84.2% (81.5–86.5%), 86.1% (83.6–88.2%), and 28.5% (25.6–31.7%) and specificities were 85.0% (84.8–85.3%), 79.1% (78.9–79.3%), and 98.9% (98.8–99.0%) for NEWS ≥ 4, SIRS ≥ 2, and qSOFA ≥ 2, respectively.ConclusionsNEWS was the most accurate scoring system for the detection of all sepsis endpoints. Furthermore, NEWS was more specific with similar sensitivity relative to SIRS, improves with disease severity, and is immediately available as it does not require laboratories. However, scoring NEWS is more involved and may be better suited for automated computation. QSOFA had the lowest sensitivity and is a poor tool for ED sepsis screening.     

Machine learning for prediction of septic shock at initial triage in emergency department

BackgroundWe hypothesized utilizing machine learning (ML) algorithms for screening septic shock in ED would provide better accuracy than qSOFA or MEWS.MethodsThe study population was adult (≥20 years) patients visiting ED for suspected infection. Target event was septic shock within 24 h after arrival. Demographics, vital signs, level of consciousness, chief complaints (CC) and initial blood test results were used as predictors. CC were embedded into 16-dimensional vector space using singular value decomposition. Six base learners including support vector machine, gradient-boosting machine, random forest, multivariate adaptive regression splines and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and ridge regression and their ensembles were tested. We also trained and tested MLP networks with various setting.ResultsA total of 49,560 patients were included and 4817 (9.7%) had septic shock within 24 h. All ML classifiers significantly outperformed qSOFA score, MEWS and their age-sex adjusted versions with their AUROC ranging from 0.883 to 0.929. The ensembles of the base classifiers showed the best performance and addition of CC embedding was associated with statistically significant increases in performance.ConclusionsML classifiers significantly outperforms clinical scores in screening septic shock at ED triage.     

Early recognition of sepsis through emergency medical services pre-hospital screening

BackgroundThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign implemented a 3-hour bundle including blood cultures, lactate, intravenous fluids, and antibiotics to improve mortality in sepsis. Though difficult to achieve, bundle compliance is associated with decreased hospital mortality. We predict that the implementation of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) sepsis screening tool will improve 3-hour bundle compliance.ObjectivesTo determine if pre-hospital sepsis screening improves 3-hour bundle compliance.MethodsProspective implementation of an EMS sepsis screening tool (June 2016–November 2016) was compared to a historical control (August 2015–March 2016). The protocol was facilitated via communication between nurses and EMS personnel. The primary outcome was 3-hour bundle compliance. Secondary outcomes included time to individual bundle components.ResultsOf 135 patients screened, 20 were positive and included in the study, and subsequently compared to 43 control patients. Baseline demographics were similar, except median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was higher for the pre-EMS tool group (5 [interquartile range (IQR) 2–8] vs. 2 [IQR 1–4], p < 0.01). Three-hour bundle compliance was significantly higher in the EMS tool group (80% vs. 44.2%, p < 0.01). The pre-EMS tool group had lower median time to lactate (15 [IQR 0–35] vs. 46 min [IQR 34–57], p < 0.001), 30 mL/kg IV fluids (6.5 [IQR 0–38] vs. 46 min [IQR 27.5–72], p < 0.001), and, although not significant, antibiotics (63.5 [IQR 44–92] vs. 72 min [IQR 59.5–112], p = 0.26).ConclusionImplementation of an EMS sepsis screening tool resulted in improved 3-hour bundle compliance compared to retrospective control.     

Prognostic performance of disease severity scores in patients with septic shock presenting to the emergency department

BackgroundAn accurate disease severity score that can quickly predict the prognosis of patients with sepsis in the emergency department (ED) can aid clinicians in distributing resources appropriately or making decisions for active resuscitation measures. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) with that of other disease severity scores in patients with septic shock presenting to an ED.MethodsWe performed a prospective, observational, registry-based study. The discriminative ability of each disease severity score to predict 28-day mortality was evaluated in the overall cohort (which included patients who fulfilled previously defined criteria for septic shock), the newly defined sepsis subgroup, and the newly defined septic shock subgroup.ResultsA total of 991 patients were included. All disease severity scores had poor discriminative ability for 28-day mortality. The sequential organ failure assessment and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scores had the highest area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values, which were significantly higher than the AUC values of other disease severity scores in the overall cohort and the sepsis and septic shock subgroups. The discriminative ability of each disease severity score decreased as the mortality rate of each subgroup increased.ConclusionsAll disease severity scores, including qSOFA, did not display good discrimination for 28-day mortality in patients with serious infection and refractory hypotension or hypoperfusion; additionally, none of the included scoring tools in this study could consistently predict 28-day mortality in the newly defined sepsis and septic shock subgroups.     

Evaluating vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

Study objective

To determine the frequency and cause of inadequate initial antibiotic therapy with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department (ED), characterize its impact on patient outcomes, and identify patients who would benefit from an alternative initial empiric regimen.

Predictors of early progression to severe sepsis or shock among emergency department patients with nonsevere sepsis

Background

Progression from nonsevere sepsis—i.e., sepsis without organ failure or shock—to severe sepsis or shock among emergency department (ED) patients has been associated with significant mortality. Early recognition in the ED of those who progress to severe sepsis or shock during their hospital course may improve patient outcomes. We sought to identify clinical, demographic, and laboratory parameters that predict progression to severe sepsis, septic shock, or death within 96 h of ED triage among patients with initial presentation of nonsevere sepsis.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort of patients presenting to a single urban academic ED from November 2008 to October 2010. Patients aged 18 years or older who met criteria for sepsis and had a lactate level measured in the ED were included. Patients were excluded if they had any combination of the following: a systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg upon triage, an initial whole blood lactate level ≥4 mmol/L, or one or more of a set of predefined signs of organ dysfunction upon initial assessment. Disease progression was defined as the development of any combination of the aforementioned conditions, initiation of vasopressors, or death within 96 h of ED presentation. Data on predefined potential predictors of disease progression and outcome measures of disease progression were collected by a query of the electronic medical record and via chart review. Logistic regression was used to assess associations of potential predictor variables with a composite outcome measure of sepsis progression to organ failure, hypotension, or death.

Results

In this cohort of 582 ED patients with nonsevere sepsis, 108 (18.6 %) experienced disease progression. Initial serum albumin <3.5 mg/dL (OR 4.82; 95 % CI 2.40–9.69; p?<?0.01) and a diastolic blood pressure <52 mmHg at ED triage (OR 4.59; 95 % CI 1.57–13.39; p?<?0.01) were independently associated with disease progression to severe sepsis or shock within 96 h of ED presentation. There were no deaths within 96 h of ED presentation.

Conclusions

In our patient cohort, serum albumin <3.5 g/dL and an ED triage diastolic blood pressure <52 mmHg independently predict early progression to severe sepsis or shock among ED patients with presumed sepsis.

     

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) identifies septic patients in the out-of-hospital setting

Background

Recently a multispecialty, multinational task force convened to redefine the criteria for organ dysfunction, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. The study recommended the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score to identify sepsis patients. The qSOFA is felt to be the initial screen to prompt a more in-depth sepsis workup. This may be particularly true in resource-limited environments such as the prehospital arena.

Safety and Effectiveness of Field Nitroglycerin in Patients with Suspected ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Objective: While widely used in the treatment of cardiac conditions, only limited data characterize out-of-hospital nitroglycerin (NTG) use. We sought to determine the safety of out-of-hospital sublingual NTG administered for suspected ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and its effect on the patient's pain score. Methods: We prospectively identified adult patients with suspected STEMI transported by paramedics to three percutaneous Coronary Intervention PCI-capable hospitals in a large urban-suburban emergency medical services (EMS) system. We compared patients who received field NTG to those who did not. The primary outcome was the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between initial EMS measurement and emergency department (ED) triage vital signs. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of hypotension (SBP < 100?mmHg) and bradycardia (HR < 60) on ED arrival, drop in SBP ≥ 30?mmHg, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and the change in pain score compared to an a priori threshold of ?1.39. Results: Among 940 EMS transports for suspected STEMI, we excluded 160 for initial SBP < 100?mmHg, leaving 780 subjects for the analysis. Median age was 67 with 61% male. NTG was administered to 340 (44%) patients. The median change in SBP was ?10?mmHg (IQR ?27, 2) and ?3?mmHg (IQR ?20, 9) in patients treated with and without NTG, respectively. The median difference in the decrease in SBP was 6?mmHg (95% CI 3, 9?mmHg). The frequencies of ED hypotension and bradycardia, the drop in SBP ≥ 30?mmHg, and the OHCA did not differ between groups. For patients with an initial pain score > 0, the average change in pain score for patients treated with NTG was ?2.6 (95% CI ?3.0, ?2.2), while patients who did not receive NTG had a change in pain score of ?1.4 (95% CI ?1.8, ?1.0). Conclusion: In this cohort, field NTG did not result in a clinically significant decrease in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not receive NTG. However, NTG did cause a clinically significant reduction in pain.