The epidemiology of acute organ system dysfunction from severe sepsis outside of the intensive care unit

Prevalence, early predictors, and outcomes of sepsis in neurocritical illnesses: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with neurocritically illness are an under-recognized population at high risk of sepsis. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, early predictors, and outcomes of sepsis in neuro-ICU.

METHODS

Daily and accumulative incidences of sepsis in neuro-ICU were explored. Demographics, medical history, baseline disease severity scores, and baseline biomarkers regarding inflammation, immunology, organ function, and nutritional status were collected and analyzed as potential predictors of sepsis. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the independent predictors, and a nomogram was used to estimate the individual probability of sepsis in neuro-ICU.

RESULTS

153 patients were included in this study. Fifty-nine (38.6%) patients developed sepsis, and 21 (14%) patients developed septic shock. More than 86% of the septic cases occurred within the first week. Sequential organ failure assessment score ((relative risk) RR 1.334, P = .026), history of diabetes (RR 2.346, P = .049), and transferrin (RR 0.128, P = .042) on admission are independent predictors of sepsis. Septic patients had significantly higher mortality (P = .011), higher medical cost (P = .028), and a lower rate of functional independence (P = .010), compared to patients without sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis afflicted more than one-third of neurocritically-ill patients and occurred mostly in the first week of admission. History of diabetes, serum transferrin, and sequential organ failure assessment score on admission were early predictors. Sepsis led to significantly worse outcomes and higher medical costs.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Procalcitonin in Sepsis Patients: Do They Have Any Prognostic Significance?

INTRODUCTION

Biomarkers like white blood cells, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-1 are used in patients with sepsis for early diagnosis, differentiating various infections, making decisions to start antibiotics and evaluate their response, and to prognosticate morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of these biomarkers, the prognosis of patients with sepsis in the ICU remains poor. Hence, this study was carried out to test the efficacy of procalcitonin and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) to prognosticate mortality and morbidity in terms of incidence of organ dysfunction and length of ICU stay in sepsis patients.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we measured NLR and procalcitonin at days one, three, and seven of sepsis patients and divided them into four groups: low NLR and high procalcitonin (LNHP), high NLR and high procalcitonin (HNHP), high NLR and low procalcitonin (HNLP), and low NLR and low procalcitonin (LNLP). Mortality at 28 days was noted as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Out of 85 patients included in the study, five were lost to follow-up. Although no statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcome between all four groups, regression analysis showed that rising NLR and procalcitonin values were associated with a significant increase in mortality.

CONCLUSION

Serial values of NLR and procalcitonin are more important in predicting severity in comparison to a single value at presentation and can be used as a prognostic marker in sepsis patients.

Sepsis awareness and knowledge amongst nurses, physicians and paramedics of a tertiary care center in Switzerland: A survey-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Prompt recognition and management are critical to improve outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among nurses and physicians of all adult departments of the Lausanne University Hospital (LUH) and paramedics transporting patients to our hospital. Measured outcomes included professionals' demographics (age, profession, seniority, unit of activity), quantification of prior sepsis education, self-evaluation, and knowledge of sepsis epidemiology, definition, recognition, and management. Correlation between surveyed personnel and sepsis perceptions and knowledge were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between January and October 2020, we contacted 1'216 of the 4'417 professionals (27.5%) of the LUH, of whom 1'116 (91.8%) completed the survey, including 619 of 2'463 (25.1%) nurses, 348 of 1'664 (20.9%) physicians and 149 of 290 (51.4%) paramedics. While 98.5% of the participants were familiar with the word "sepsis" (97.4% of nurses, 100% of physicians and 99.3% of paramedics), only 13% of them (physicians: 28.4%, nurses: 5.9%, paramedics: 6.8%) correctly identified the Sepsis-3 consensus definition. Similarly, only 48% and 49.3% of the physicians and 10.1% an 11.9% of the nurses knew that SOFA was a sepsis defining score and that the qSOFA score was a predictor of increased mortality, respectively. Furthermore, 15.8% of the physicians and 1.0% of the nurses knew the three components of the qSOFA score. For patients with suspected sepsis, 96.1%, 91.6% and 75.8% of physicians respectively chose blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and fluid resuscitation as therapeutic interventions to be initiated within 1 (76.4%) to 3 (18.2%) hours. For nurses and physicians, recent training correlated with knowledge of SOFA score (ORs [95%CI]: 3.956 [2.018-7.752] and 2.617 [1.527-4.485]) and qSOFA (ORs [95%CI]: 5.804 [2.653-9.742] and 2.291 [1.342-3.910]) scores purposes. Furthermore, recent training also correlated with adequate sepsis definition (ORs [95%CI]: 1.839 [1.026-3.295]) and the components of qSOFA (ORs [95%CI]: 2.388 [1.110-5.136]) in physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

This sepsis survey conducted among physicians, nurses and paramedics of a tertiary Swiss medical center identified a deficit of sepsis awareness and knowledge reflecting a lack of sepsis-specific continuing education requiring immediate corrective measures.

Epidemiology of Organ Failure Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic Surge Conditions

BACKGROUND

Understanding the distribution of organ failure before and during the COVID-19 pandemic surge can provide a deeper understanding of how the pandemic strained health care systems and affected outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the distribution of organ failure in 3 New York City hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult admissions across hospitals from February 1, 2020, through May 31, 2020, was conducted. The cohort was stratified into those admitted before March 17, 2020 (prepandemic) and those admitted on or after that date (SARS-CoV-2-positive and non-SARS-CoV-2). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were computed every 2 hours for each admission.

RESULTS

A total of 1 794 975 scores were computed for 20 704 admissions. Before and during the pandemic, renal failure was the most common type of organ failure at admission and respiratory failure was the most common type of hospital-onset organ failure. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 231% increase in respiratory failure compared with the prepandemic group. More than 65% of hospital-onset organ failure in the prepandemic group and 83% of hospital-onset respiratory failure in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group occurred outside intensive care units. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 341% increase in multiorgan failure compared with the prepandemic group. Compared with the prepandemic and non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had significantly higher mortality for the same admission and maximum organ failure score.

CONCLUSION

Most hospital-onset organ failure began outside intensive care units, with a marked increase in multiorgan failure during pandemic surge conditions and greater hospital mortality for the severity of organ failure.

Sensitivity and specificity of a quick sequential [Sepsis-Related] organ failure assessment sepsis screening tool

AIM

There is limited evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of a quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) sepsis screening (SS) tool in developing nation health settings. The aim of this study was to test the diagnostic accuracy of a qSOFA-based SS tool, and the predictive validity of the qSOFA score in hospital ward patients from Argentina.

METHODS

Prospective observational study. Patients (≥18 years, without sepsis) were recruited within 24-48 hours of admission to a 169-bed tertiary referral private hospital in Buenos Aires. The index test was the qSOFA-based SS tool, and the reference standard sepsis diagnosed at discharge blindly evaluated with reference to the Sepsis-3.

RESULTS

In 1151 patients (median age 69.9 [IQR, 29.0]); 47 (4.1%) had sepsis, 413 (35.9%) had infection and 691 (60.0%) other diagnoses at discharge. The qSOFA-based SS tool (index test) had moderate sensitivity (60%), good specificity (89%), a very low positive (19%) and very high negative (98%) predictive value for sepsis diagnosed at discharge according to the Sepsis-3 criteria (reference standard). For the same outcome, the qSOFA score in isolation had a reasonable predictive validity area under receiver operating characteristics curve 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

The qSOFA score could reasonably discriminate patients at risk of developing sepsis; qSOFA-based screening may be valuable where no screening criteria are in place.

[Sepsis-associated deaths in Germany: characteristics and regional variation]

Hintergrund

Sepsis ist weltweit jährlich für geschätzt 11 Mio. Todesfälle verantwortlich. Die Epidemiologie sepsisassoziierter Todesfälle ist in Deutschland unzureichend verstanden, da Sepsis bisher nicht über die deutsche unikausale Todesursachenstatistik erfasst werden kann.

Ziel der Arbeit

Epidemiologie und Charakteristika sepsisassoziierter Krankenhaustodesfälle sollen analysiert sowie regionale Unterschiede beschrieben werden.

Material und Methoden

Retrospektive Beobachtungsstudie basierend auf der deutschlandweiten fallpauschalenbezogenen Krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik) 2016. Sepsisassoziierte Krankenhaustodesfälle wurden über explizite und implizite Sepsis-ICD-10-GM(Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10. Revision, German Modification)-Codierungen identifiziert. Verstorbene wurden anhand der klinischen Merkmale und ihres Wohnortes entsprechend Amtlichem Gemeindeschlüssel (AGS-5-Steller) charakterisiert. Basierend auf der Bevölkerungsstatistik wurde der Anteil an den Gesamttodesfällen ermittelt.

Ergebnisse

2016 gab es in Deutschland 58.689 mit explizit codierter Sepsis assoziierte Krankenhaustodesfälle (14,1 % aller Krankenhaustodesfälle). Die Mortalität betrug 73/100.000 Einwohner und variierte 1,8-fach zwischen den Bundesländern und 7,9-fach zwischen den Kreisen. 6,4 % der deutschlandweiten Todesfälle waren sepsisassoziierte Krankenhaustodesfälle. Dieser Anteil war am höchsten in der Altersgruppe der 40- bis 64-Jährigen (9,6 %) und höher bei Männern als bei Frauen (7,7 % vs. 5,2 %). Im Vergleich dazu betrug der Anteil von implizit codierten sepsisassoziierten Krankenhaustodesfällen 47,2 % an allen Krankenhaustodesfällen und 21,6 % an allen Todesfällen.

Diskussion

Auch wenn die direkte Todesursache nicht sicher ableitbar ist, lässt sich aus dem hohen Anteil sepsisassoziierter Todesfälle an den Krankenhaustodesfällen der Bedarf weiterer Forschung und epidemiologischer Surveillance ableiten, zum Beispiel in Kohortenstudien oder auf Basis von multikausalen Todesursachenstatistiken.

Zusatzmaterial online

Zusätzliche Informationen sind in der Online-Version dieses Artikels (10.1007/s00103-021-03427-5) enthalten.

Comparison of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment and adult sepsis pathway in predicting adverse outcomes among adult patients in general wards: a retrospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is recommended for use by the most recent international sepsis definition taskforce to identify suspected sepsis in patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of adverse outcomes. Evidence of its comparative effectiveness with existing sepsis recognition tools is important to guide decisions about its widespread implementation.

AIM

To compare the performance of qSOFA with the adult sepsis pathway (ASP), a current sepsis recognition tool widely used in NSW hospitals and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in predicting adverse outcomes in adult patients on general wards.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted which included all adults with suspected infections admitted to a Sydney teaching hospital between December 2014 and June 2016. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality with two secondary composite outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 2940 patients with suspected infection, 217 (7.38%) died in-hospital and 702 (23.88%) were subsequently admitted to ICU. The ASP showed the greatest ability to correctly discriminate in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for mortality was 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.78), compared to 0.64 for the qSOFA tool (95% CI: 0.61-0.67, P < 0.0001). Median time from the first ASP sepsis warning to death was 8.21 days (interquartile range (IQR): 2.29-16.75) while it was 0 days for qSOFA (IQR: 0-2.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The ASP demonstrated both greater prognostic accuracy and earlier warning for in-hospital mortality for adults on hospital wards compared to qSOFA. Hospitals already using ASP may not benefit from switching to the qSOFA tool.

Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Sepsis Discharge Diagnosis Codes and Short Lengths of Stay in U.S. Hospitals

Objectives:

Some patients diagnosed with sepsis have very brief hospitalizations. Understanding the prevalence and clinical characteristics of these patients may provide insight into how sepsis diagnoses are being applied as well as the breadth of illnesses encompassed by current sepsis definitions.

Design:

Retrospective observational study.

Setting:

One-hundred ten U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset (primary cohort) and four hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts (secondary cohort used for detailed medical record reviews).

Patients:

Adults hospitalized from April 2016 to December 2017.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

We identified hospitalizations with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition codes for sepsis (including sepsis, septicemia, severe sepsis, and septic shock) and compared “short stay sepsis” patients (defined as discharge alive within 3 d) versus nonshort stay sepsis patients using detailed electronic health record data. In the Cerner cohort, 67,733 patients had sepsis discharge diagnosis codes, including 6,918 (10.2%) with short stays. Compared with nonshort stay sepsis patients, short stay patients were younger (median age 60 vs 67 yr) and had fewer comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 5 vs 13), lower rates of positive blood cultures (8.2% vs 24.1%), lower rates of ICU admission (6.2% vs 31.6%), and less frequently had severe sepsis/septic shock codes (13.5% vs 36.6%). Almost all short stay and nonshort stay sepsis patients met systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria at admission (84.5% and 87.5%, respectively); 47.2% of those with short stays had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores of 2 or greater at admission versus 73.2% of those with longer stays. Findings were similar in the secondary four-hospital cohort. Medical record reviews demonstrated that physicians commonly diagnosed sepsis based on the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, elevated lactates, or positive blood cultures without concurrent organ dysfunction.

Conclusions:

In this large U.S. cohort, one in 10 patients coded for sepsis were discharged alive within 3 days. Although most short stay patients met systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, they met Sepsis-3 criteria less than half the time. Our findings underscore the incomplete uptake of Sepsis-3 definitions, the breadth of illness severities encompassed by both traditional and new sepsis definitions, and the possibility that some patients with sepsis recover very rapidly.

Comparison of SOFA Score, SIRS, qSOFA, and qSOFA + L Criteria in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis

Objective

Sepsis has been defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction that develops as a result of impaired host response to infection. This study aimed to investigate sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and qSOFA + lactate criteria (qSOFA+L) in the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was performed that included all patients diagnosed with sepsis between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 in Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Clinic.

Results

A total of 976 patients diagnosed with sepsis (mean age 72.5±13.7 years, 52.7% women) over five years were included in this study. Of all patients admitted to the emergency department and diagnosed with sepsis, 37.4% (n=365) were hospitalized and 52.3% (n=191) of these patients died. Emergency department mortality was 12.5% (n=122). The mortality rate was higher in patients with qSOFA and qSOFA+L criteria ≥2 in the emergency department. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SIRS, qSOFA, or qSOFA+L criteria among patients who died in the hospital. The SOFA score (area under receiver operator characteristic curve, AUC=0.89) was highly discriminative in predicting sepsis. When the SOFA score was>11, its sensitivity and negative predictive values were both 100%. The SOFA score (AUC=0.75 and 0.72, respectively) was also highly discriminative in predicting emergency and in-hospital mortality. When the SOFA score was>11, the sensitivity and specificity of predicting emergency department mortality were 63.5% and 78.8%, respectively. The sensitivity was 65.8% and the specificity was 75.5% when describing in-hospital mortality for SOFA scores>9.

Conclusion

The SOFA score was highly sensitive and predictive in the diagnosis of sepsis. The SOFA score had a high discriminative ability to predict emergency and in-hospital mortality.

Time course of dementia following sepsis in German health claims data

Objective

We evaluated the short-, medium-, and long-term effects of sepsis on dementia incidence using German health claims data.

Methods

A total of 161,567 patients (65 years or older) were followed from 2004 to 2015 at quarterly intervals. Time since sepsis was categorized into 0 (the effective quarter of sepsis diagnosis), 1–8, and ≥9 quarters since the latest diagnosis of sepsis, taking into account admission to intensive care unit and controlling for delirium, surgery, age, sex, and comorbidities. Incident dementia was defined for all persons who did not have a validated dementia diagnosis in 2004 and 2005 and who received a first-time, valid diagnosis between 2006 and 2015.

Results

During the quarter of sepsis diagnosis, patients not admitted to intensive care had a 3.14-fold (95% CI 2.83–3.49) increased risk, and those with intensive care stay had a 2.22-fold (95% CI: 1.83–2.70) increased risk of receiving an incident dementia diagnosis compared with patients without sepsis. The impact of sepsis on incident dementia remained in the following 2 years, remitting only thereafter.

Conclusions

For sepsis survivors, medium-term dementia risk remains elevated, whereas long-term risk may reach the level of those without sepsis, even after controlling for delirium. These findings encourage identifying modifiable components of hospital and rehabilitation care.

Impact of Risk Adjustment Using Clinical vs Administrative Data on Hospital Sepsis Mortality Comparisons

Background

A reliable risk-adjusted sepsis outcome measure could complement current national process metrics by identifying outlier hospitals and catalyzing additional improvements in care. However, it is unclear whether integrating clinical data into risk adjustment models identifies similar high- and low-performing hospitals compared with administrative data alone, which are simpler to acquire and analyze.

Methods

We ranked 200 US hospitals by their Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (ASE) mortality rates and assessed how rankings changed after applying (1) an administrative risk adjustment model incorporating demographics, comorbidities, and codes for severe illness and (2) an integrated clinical and administrative model replacing severity-of-illness codes with laboratory results, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation. We assessed agreement between hospitals’ risk-adjusted ASE mortality rates when ranked into quartiles using weighted kappa statistics (к).

Results

The cohort included 4 009 631 hospitalizations, of which 245 808 met ASE criteria. Risk-adjustment had a large effect on rankings: 22/50 hospitals (44%) in the worst quartile using crude mortality rates shifted into better quartiles after administrative risk adjustment, and a further 21/50 (42%) of hospitals in the worst quartile using administrative risk adjustment shifted to better quartiles after incorporating clinical data. Conversely, 14/50 (28%) hospitals in the best quartile using administrative risk adjustment shifted to worse quartiles with clinical data. Overall agreement between hospital quartile rankings when risk-adjusted using administrative vs clinical data was moderate (к = 0.55).

Conclusions

Incorporating clinical data into risk adjustment substantially changes rankings of hospitals’ sepsis mortality rates compared with using administrative data alone. Comprehensive risk adjustment using both administrative and clinical data is necessary before comparing hospitals by sepsis mortality rates.

Sepsis trends: increasing incidence and decreasing mortality, or changing denominator?

Numerous studies suggest that the incidence of sepsis has been steadily increasing over the past several decades while mortality rates are falling. However, reliably assessing trends in sepsis epidemiology is challenging due to changing diagnosis and coding practices over time. Ongoing efforts by clinicians, administrators, policy makers, and patient advocates to increase sepsis awareness, screening, and recognition are leading to more patients being labeled with sepsis. Subjective clinical definitions and heterogeneous presentations also allow for wide discretion in diagnosing sepsis rather than specific infections alone or non-specific syndromes. These factors create a potential ascertainment bias whereby the inclusion of less severely ill patients in sepsis case counts over time leads to a perceived increase in sepsis incidence and decrease in sepsis mortality rates. Analyses that rely on administrative data alone are further confounded by changing coding practices in response to new policies, financial incentives, and efforts to improve documentation. An alternate strategy for measuring sepsis incidence, outcomes, and trends is to use objective and consistent clinical criteria rather than administrative codes or registries to identify sepsis. This is feasible using data routinely found in electronic health record systems, such as blood culture draws and sustained courses of antibiotics to identify infection and laboratory values, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation to measure acute organ dysfunction. Recent surveillance studies using this approach suggest that sepsis incidence and mortality rates have been essentially stable over the past decade. In this review, we summarize the major epidemiologic studies of sepsis trends, potential biases in these analyses, and the recent change in the surveillance paradigm toward using objective clinical data from electronic health records to more accurately characterize sepsis trends.

The History of Biomarkers: How Far Have We Come?

Sepsis is one of the oldest and most elusive syndromes in medicine that is still incompletely understood. Biomarkers may help to transform sepsis from a physiologic syndrome to a group of distinct biochemical disorders. This will help to differentiate between systemic inflammation of infectious and noninfectious origin and aid therapeutic decision making, hence improve the prognosis for patients, guide antimicrobial therapy, and foster the development of novel adjunctive sepsis therapies. To reach this goal requires increased systematic investigation that includes twenty-first century scientific approaches and technologies and appropriate clinical evaluation.

Prevalence of organ failure and mortality among patients in the emergency department: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to describe population-based incidence and emergency department-based prevalence and 1-year all-cause mortality of patients with new organ failure present at arrival.

DESIGN

This was a population-based cohort study of all citizens in four municipalities (population of 230 000 adults).

SETTING

Emergency department at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

We included all adult patients who arrived from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Organ failure was defined as a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score≥2 within six possible organ systems: cerebral, circulatory, renal, respiratory, hepatic and coagulation.The primary outcome was prevalence of organ failure, and secondary outcomes were 0-7 days, 8-30 days and 31-365 days all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We identified in total 175 278 contacts, of which 70 399 contacts were further evaluated for organ failure. Fifty-two per cent of these were women, median age 62 (IQR 42-77) years. The incidence of new organ failure was 1342/100 000 person-years, corresponding to 5.2% of all emergency department contacts.The 0-7-day, 8-30-day and 31-365-day mortality was 11.0% (95% CI: 10.2% to 11.8%), 5.6% (95% CI: 5.1% to 6.2%) and 13.2% (95% CI: 12.3% to 14.1%), respectively, if the patient had one or more new organ failures at first contact in the observation period, compared with 1.4% (95% CI: 1.3% to 1.6%), 1.2% (95% CI: 1.1% to 1.3%) and 5.2% (95% CI: 5.0% to 5.4%) for patients without. Seven-day mortality ranged from hepatic failure, 6.5% (95% CI: 4.9% to 8.6%), to cerebral failure, 33.8% (95% CI: 31.0% to 36.8%), the 8-30-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.8% to 5.3%), to hepatic failure, 8.6% (95% CI: 6.6% to 10.8%) and 31-365-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 9.3% (95% CI: 7.6% to 11.2%), to renal failure, 18.2% (95% CI: 15.5% to 21.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed an incidence of new organ failure at 1342/100 000 person-years and a prevalence of 5.2% of all emergency department contacts. One-year all-cause mortality was 29.8% among organ failure patients.

Risk Adjustment for Sepsis Mortality to Facilitate Hospital Comparisons Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event Criteria and Routine Electronic Clinical Data

Variability in hospital-level sepsis mortality rates may be due to differences in case mix, quality of care, or diagnosis and coding practices. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event definition could facilitate objective comparisons of sepsis mortality rates between hospitals but requires rigorous risk-adjustment tools. We developed risk-adjustment models for Adult Sepsis Events using administrative and electronic health record data.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

One hundred thirty-six U.S. hospitals in Cerner HealthFacts (derivation dataset) and 137 HCA Healthcare hospitals (validation dataset).

PATIENTS

A total of 95,154 hospitalized adult patients (derivation) and 201,997 patients (validation) meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We created logistic regression models of increasing complexity using administrative and electronic health record data to predict in-hospital mortality. An administrative model using demographics, comorbidities, and coded markers of severity of illness at admission achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.776 (95% CI, 0.770-0.783) in the Cerner cohort, with diminishing calibration at higher baseline risk deciles. An electronic health record-based model that integrated administrative data with laboratory results, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.826 (95% CI, 0.820-0.831) in the derivation cohort and 0.827 (95% CI, 0.824-0.829) in the validation cohort, with better calibration than the administrative model. Adding vital signs and Glasgow Coma Score minimally improved performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Models incorporating electronic health record data accurately predict hospital mortality for patients with Adult Sepsis Events and outperform models using administrative data alone. Utilizing laboratory test results, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation without vital signs may achieve a good balance between data collection needs and model performance, but electronic health record-based models must be attentive to potential variability in data quality and availability. With ongoing testing and refinement of these risk-adjustment models, Adult Sepsis Event surveillance may enable more meaningful comparisons of hospital sepsis outcomes and provide an important window into quality of care.

Clinical Decision Support for Early Recognition of Sepsis

Sepsis is an inflammatory response triggered by infection, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Early recognition and treatment can reverse the inflammatory response, with evidence of improved patient outcomes. One challenge clinicians face is identifying the inflammatory syndrome against the background of the patient's infectious illness and comorbidities. An approach to this problem is implementation of computerized early warning tools for sepsis. This multicenter retrospective study sought to determine clinimetric performance of a cloud-based computerized sepsis clinical decision support system (CDS), understand the epidemiology of sepsis, and identify opportunities for quality improvement. Data encompassed 6200 adult hospitalizations from 2012 through 2013. Of 13% patients screened-in, 51% were already suspected to have an infection when the system activated. This study focused on a patient cohort screened-in before infection was suspected; median time from arrival to CDS activation was 3.5 hours, and system activation to diagnostic collect was another 8.6 hours.

A Snapshot of Compliance with the Sepsis Six Care Bundle in Two Acute Hospitals in the West Midlands, UK

BACKGROUND

The sepsis six care bundle has been adopted by hospitals in England and Wales for the management of patients with sepsis, with the aim of increasing survival when all elements of the bundle are achieved.

AIM

To assess compliance with the Sepsis Six Care Bundle in two acute NHS hospitals in the West Midlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults admitted to hospital over a 24-hour period were screened for sepsis. Sepsis was identified using the Systemic Inflammatory Response (SIRS) criteria and the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. Adherence to the Sepsis Six Care Bundle was assessed.

RESULTS

249 patients were screened and 24 patients were identified as having sepsis (9.6%). One patient received all six elements of the bundle. Compliance was highest for giving intravenous fluids (58.3%) and antibiotics (58.3%), and lowest for measuring urine output (16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to establish the reasons for low compliance.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Frankling C, Patel J, Sharif B, Melody T, Yeung J, Gao F, et al. A Snapshot of Compliance with the Sepsis Six Care Bundle in Two Acute Hospitals in the West Midlands, UK. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(7):310-315.

Pathophysiology of Acute Illness and Injury

The pathophysiology of acute illness and injury recognizes three main effectors: infection, trauma, and ischemia-reperfusion injury. Each of them can act by itself or in combination with the other two in developing a systemic inflammatory reaction syndrome (SIRS) that is a generalized reaction to the morbid event. The time course of SIRS is variable and influenced by the number and severity of subsequent insults (e.g., reparative surgery, acquired hospital infections). It occurs simultaneously with a complex of counter-regulatory mechanisms (compensatory anti-inflammatory response syndrome, CARS) that limit the aggressive effects of SIRS. In adjunct, a progressive dysfunction of the acquired (lymphocytes) immune system develops with increased risk for immunoparalysis and associated infectious complications. Both humoral and cellular effectors participate to the development of SIRS and CARS. The most important humoral mediators are pro-inflammatory (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12) and anti-inflammatory (IL-4, IL-10) cytokines and chemokines, complement, leukotrienes, and PAF. Effector cells include neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and endothelial cells. The endothelium is a key factor for production of remote organ damage as it exerts potent chemo-attracting effects on inflammatory cells, allows for leukocyte trafficking into tissues and organs, and promotes further inflammation by cytokines release. Moreover, the loss of vasoregulatory properties and the increased permeability contribute to the development of hypotension and tissue edema. Finally, the disseminated activation of the coagulation cascade causes the widespread deposition of microthrombi with resulting maldistribution of capillary blood flow and ultimately hypoxic cellular damage. This mechanism together with increased vascular permeability and vasodilation is responsible for the development of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS).

Prevalence and prognosis of acutely ill patients with organ failure at arrival to hospital: A systematic review

Introduction

Patients in an emergency department are diverse. Some are more seriously ill than others and some even arrive in multi-organ failure. Knowledge of the prevalence of organ failure and its prognosis in unselected patients is important from a diagnostic, hospital planning, and from a quality evaluation point of view, but is not reported systematically.

Objectives

To analyse the prevalence and prognosis of new onset organ failure in unselected acute patients at arrival to hospital.

Methods

A systematic review of studies of prevalence and prognosis of acutely ill patients with organ failure at arrival to hospital. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Cinahl, and read references in included studies. Two authors decided independently on study eligibility and extracted data. Results were summarised qualitatively.

Results

Four studies were included with a total of 678,960 patients. The number of different organ failures reported in the studies ranged from one to six, and the settings were emergency departments and wards. The definitions of organ failure varied between studies. The prevalence of organ failure was 7%, 14%, 14%, and 23%, and in-hospital mortality was 5%, 11% and 15% respectively. The relative risk of in-hospital mortality for patients with organ failure compared to patients without organ failure varied from 2.58 to 8.65. Numbers of organ failures per 1,000 visits varied from 71 to 256.

Conclusion

The results of this review indicate that clinicians have good reasons to be alert when a patient arrives to the emergency department; as a state of organ failure seems both frequent and highly severe.

However, most studies identified were performed in patients after a diagnosis was established, and only very few studies were performed in unselected patients.

Systematic review registration number

PROSPERO: CRD42017060871.

Improving outcome of sepsis on the ward: introducing the 'Sepsis Six' bundle

BACKGROUND

The Sepsis Six bundle is designed to facilitate early intervention with three diagnostic and three therapeutic steps to be delivered within 1 h to patients with suspected sepsis.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of delivering the 'Sepsis Six' bundle by the Critical Care Outreach team on patient outcomes.

DESIGN

In a prospective observational study, all adult patients on the general wards from June 2012 to January 2014 with sepsis who were screened and treated by the Critical Care Outreach team were included.

METHODS

The main outcome measure was the change in National Early Warning Score following the delivery of the Sepsis Six bundle within 24 h. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality and overall bundle compliance.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included in the analysis. Overall bundle compliance was 84%. National Early Warning Scores decreased significantly 24 h after administering the Sepsis Six, from 7·4 ± 2·6 to 3·1 ± 2·4 (p < 0·001). The distribution of the National Early Warning Score changed significantly. Mortality was lower at 90 days when patients who presented with signs of sepsis within 48 h of hospital admission were compared with those who presented with signs of sepsis after 48 h of hospital admission (14·5% versus 35·4% p < 0·03) despite similar baseline physiological variables.

CONCLUSIONS

We found better outcomes after the administration of Sepsis Six. Reliable delivery of the bundle, defined as 80% of patients receiving the standard of care, is achievable, and our quality improvement data suggest that it is likely to be sustainable in our environment.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Sepsis Six can reduce physiological impairment, monitored by the National Early Warning Scores. Consistent delivery of the bundle can lead to better patient outcomes.

Sepsis-3 Septic Shock Criteria and Associated Mortality Among Infected Hospitalized Patients Assessed by a Rapid Response Team

BACKGROUND

Rapid response teams (RRTs) respond to hospitalized patients with deterioration and help determine subsequent management, including ICU admission. In such patients with sepsis and septic shock, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) clinical criteria have a potential role in detection, risk stratification, and prognostication; however, their accuracy in comparison with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based septic shock criteria is unknown. We sought to evaluate prognostic accuracy of the Sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among infected hospitalized patients with acute deterioration.

METHODS

Prospectively collected registry data (2012-2016) from two hospitals, including consecutive hospitalized patients with suspected infection seen by the RRT. We compared the Sepsis-3 criteria with the SIRS-based criteria for prediction of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,708 included patients, 418 (24.5%) met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria, whereas 545 (31.9%) met the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria had higher in-hospital mortality (40.9% vs 33.5%; P < .0001), ICU admission (99.5% vs 89.2%; P < .001), and discharge rates to long-term care (66.3% vs 53.7%; P < .0001) than patients meeting the SIRS-based septic shock criteria, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment were 64.9% and 92.2% for prediction of in-hospital mortality, whereas SIRS criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.6% and 23.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients with deterioration from suspected infection had higher risk of in-hospital mortality if they met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria than the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Therefore, use of the Sepsis-3 criteria may be preferable in the prognostication and disposition of these patients who are critically ill.

Using System Inflammatory Response Syndrome as an Easy-to-Implement, Sustainable, and Automated Tool for All-Cause Deterioration Among Medical Inpatients

OBJECTIVES

Clinical deterioration detection among adult inpatients is known to be suboptimal, and many electronic health record tools have been developed to help identify these patients. Many of these tools are focused on sepsis spectrum disorders, but the evolution of the definition of sepsis is moving toward increased specificity, which may make automated detection of clinical deterioration from nonsepsis-related conditions less likely. The objectives of this study were to develop and to examine the use of a low-cost, highly sustainable deterioration detection tool based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.

METHODS

Using existing resources, a SIRS-based electronic health record monitoring and intervention tool was developed with a focus on ease of implementation and high sustainability. This tool was used to monitor 15,739 adult inpatients in real time during their admission.

RESULTS

The SIRS-based tool, created with focus on ease of implementation and high sustainability, identified patients with higher risk of clinical deterioration. The project was rapidly deployed for a 4-month period at a 900-bed campus of an academic medical center with minimal additional resources required.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the definition of sepsis moves away from SIRS, SIRS-based criteria may still have clinical benefit as an easy-to-automate detection tool for all-cause clinical deterioration among medical inpatients.

Creation of the Prevention of Organ Failure Checklist. A Multidisciplinary Approach Using the Modified Delphi Technique

RATIONALE

Respiratory failure represents a major risk for morbidity and mortality. Although generally managed in the intensive care unit (ICU), respiratory failure often begins elsewhere. Checklists of care processes to minimize the duration of mechanical ventilation and adverse events are routinely used in the ICU, but are uncommonly used outside the ICU.

OBJECTIVES

To develop consensus among a multidisciplinary expert panel on care practices to include in a checklist of best practices for critically ill patients with respiratory failure before and after ICU admission.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary expert panel was assembled. The panel was tasked with creating a checklist of care processes aimed at decreasing progression to respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality in mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Over the course of multiple teleconferences and e-mail communications, the Prevention of Organ Failure Checklist list was reviewed, refined, and voted upon. Items that received greater than 75% of the vote were included in the final checklist.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Using a modified Delphi process, the expert panel was able to compile Prevention of Organ Failure Checklist into 20 items that aimed to decrease mechanical ventilation by assessing the causes of acute respiratory failure, ventilation strategies, sedation, and general critical care processes, as well as to avoid unwanted or nonbeneficial interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Delphi process identified readily available preventative interventions suitable for checklist implementation in patients with or progressing to respiratory failure even before ICU admission.

Prevalence and prognosis of acutely ill patients with organ failure at arrival to hospital: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acutely ill patients are a heterogeneous group, and some of these suffer from organ failure. As the prognosis of organ failure improves with early treatment, it is important to identify these patients as early as possible. Most studies on organ failure have been performed in intensive care settings, or on selected groups of patients, where a high prevalence and mortality have been reported. Before patients arrive to the intensive care unit, or the general ward, most of them have passed through the emergency department (ED), where diagnosis and treatment has been initiated. The prevalence and prognosis of acutely ill patients, with organ failure, at arrival have been studied in some selected groups, but methods and results differ. This systematic review aims to identify, summarize, and analyze studies of prevalence and prognosis of new onset organ failure in acutely ill undifferentiated patients, at arrival to hospital. The result of the review will assist physicians working in an ED, when assessing patients' risk of organ failure and their associated prognosis.

METHODS

The information sources used are electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL; references in included studies and review articles; and authors' personal files. One author will perform the title and abstract screening and exclude obviously ineligible studies. By an independent full-text screening, two authors will decide on the eligibility for the remaining studies. Eligible studies will include an unselected group of acutely ill adult patients at arrival to hospital, with one or more organ failures (respiratory, renal, cerebral, circulatory, hepatic, or coagulation failure). Included studies will have assessed the prevalence or prognosis, defined as mortality or ICU transfer, of new onset organ failure. From included studies, bibliographical and study description data, patient characteristics, and data related to prevalence of organ failure and prognosis will be extracted. We will assess risk of bias in included studies using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool for prognostic studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. We expect heterogeneity and to conduct a qualitative synthesis of the results. If, however, heterogeneity is low, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis stratified by basic study design.

DISCUSSION

This review will summarize and analyze studies of prevalence and prognosis of acutely ill patients, with organ failure at arrival to hospital, assist ED physicians assessing the risk of organ failure in unselected patients, and guide recommendations for further research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017060871.

Clinical factors influencing mortality risk in hospital-acquired sepsis

BACKGROUND

Identification of factors that confer an increased risk of mortality in hospital-acquired sepsis (HAS) is necessary to help prevent, and improve the outcome of, this condition.

AIM

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and factors associated with mortality in patients with HAS.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with HAS in a major Spanish Hospital from 2011 to 2015. Data from adults receiving any of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes associated with sepsis were collected. Those fulfilling the SEPSIS-2 definition with no evidence of infection during the first 48 h following hospitalization were included (N = 196). Multivariate analysis was employed to identify the risk factors of mortality.

FINDINGS

HAS patients were found to have many of the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (male sex, ageing, antecedent of cardiac disease, arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, smoking habit) and cancer. Vascular disease or chronic kidney disease were associated with 28-day mortality. Time from hospital admission to sepsis diagnosis, and the presence of organ failure were risk factors for 28-day and hospital mortality. Experiencing more than one episode of sepsis increased the risk of hospital mortality. 'Sepsis code' for the early identification of sepsis was protective against hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies several major factors associated with mortality in patients suffering from HAS. Implementation of surveillance programmes for the early identification and treatment of sepsis translate into a clear benefit.

Screening for sepsis in general hospitalized patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a condition widely observed outside critical care areas.

AIM

To examine the application of sepsis screening tools for early recognition of sepsis in general hospitalized patients to: (i) identify the accuracy of these tools; (ii) determine the outcomes associated with their implementation; and (iii) describe the implementation process.

METHODS

A systematic review method was used. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched for primary articles, published from January 1990 to June 2016, that investigated screening tools or alert mechanisms for early identification of sepsis in adult general hospitalized patients. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016042261).

FINDINGS

More than 8000 citations were screened for eligibility after duplicates had been removed. Six articles met the inclusion criteria testing two types of sepsis screening tools. Electronic tools can capture, recognize abnormal variables, and activate an alert in real time. However, accuracy of these tools was inconsistent across studies with only one demonstrating high specificity and sensitivity. Paper-based, nurse-led screening tools appear to be more sensitive in the identification of septic patients but were only studied in small samples and particular populations. The process of care measures appears to be enhanced; however, demonstrating improved outcomes is more challenging. Implementation details are rarely reported. Heterogeneity of studies prevented meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians, researchers and health decision-makers should consider these findings and limitations when implementing screening tools, research or policy on sepsis recognition in general hospitalized patients.

An observational study of community-acquired severe sepsis comparing intensive care and non-intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

Most studies of sepsis are from intensive care units (ICUs). We aimed to investigate community-acquired severe sepsis in a broader population, in order to compare patients treated in or outside an ICU .

METHODS

We performed a 1-year prospective observational study with enrollment of patients from three units; a general ICU, a combined ICU/non-ICU and a medical ward with limited surveillance facilities. Hospital survivors were followed up for 5 years.

RESULTS

Overall, 220 patients were included, of which 107 received ICU treatment. The majority of abdominal (77%, P = 0.003) and genitourinary (81%, P < 0.001) infections were found in ICU and non-ICU patients, respectively. Time to first antibiotic administration was longer in ICU-patients (median 3.5 vs. 2.0 h in non-ICU patients, P = 0.011). ICU developed more organ dysfunctions than non-ICU patients (P < 0.001), nevertheless supportive therapy with vasoactive drugs and non-invasive ventilation was documented in 22% and 27% of the latter. Median hospital length of stay was 15 vs. 9 days (P = 0.001), and hospital and 5-year mortality rates 35% vs. 16% (P = 0.002) and 57% vs. 58% (P = 0.892) among ICU and non-ICU patients, respectively. Increasing age (HR 1.06 (1.04, 1.07) per year, P < 0.001), not care level during hospitalization (HR 1.19 (0.70, 2.02), P = 0.514), influenced long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Half of the subjects with community-acquired severe sepsis never received ICU treatment. Still, use of organ supportive therapy outside the ICU was considerable. Hospital mortality was higher, whereas 5-year survival was similar when comparing ICU with non-ICU patients.

Sepsis Incidence: A Population-Based Study

Background.

Although sepsis is a major health problem, data on sepsis epidemiology are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of sepsis, based on clinical findings in all adult patients treated with intravenous antibiotic in all parts of all hospitals in an entire population.

Methods.

This is a retrospective chart review of patients ≥18 years, living in 2 regions in Sweden, who were started on an intravenous antibiotic therapy on 4 dates, evenly distributed over the year of 2015. The main outcome was the incidence of sepsis with organ dysfunction. The mean population ≥18 years at 2015 in the regions was 1275753. Five hundred sixty-three patients living in the regions were started on intravenous antibiotic treatment on the dates of the survey. Patients who had ongoing intravenous antibiotic therapy preceding the inclusion dates were excluded, if sepsis was already present.

Results.

Four hundred eighty-two patients were included in the study; 339 had a diagnosed infection, of those, 96 had severe sepsis according to the 1991/2001 sepsis definitions, and 109 had sepsis according to the sepsis-3. This is equivalent to an annual incidence of traditional severe sepsis of 687/100000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 549–824) or according to the sepsis-3 definition of 780/100000 persons (95% CI, 633–926). Seventy-four patients had sepsis according to both definitions.

Conclusions.

The incidence of sepsis with organ dysfunction is higher than most previous estimates independent of definition. The inclusion of all inpatients started on intravenous antibiotic treatment of sepsis in a population makes an accurate assessment of sepsis incidence possible.

Implementation of a multicenter performance improvement program for early detection and treatment of severe sepsis in general medical-surgical wards

Sepsis is a leading cause of in-hospital death, and evidence suggests a higher mortality in patients presenting with sepsis on the ward compared to those presenting to the emergency department. Ward patients who develop severe sepsis may have poor outcomes for a variety of reasons, including delayed diagnosis, lack of readily available staffing, and delayed treatment. We report on a multihospital quality improvement program for early detection and treatment of sepsis on general medical-surgical wards. We describe a multipronged approach to improve severe sepsis outcomes using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Plan-Do-Study-Act model. Sixty sites engaged in a collaborative implementation process that aligned people, process, and technology. Based on our experience, we recommend a stepwise approach to implement such a program: (1) both administrative and clinical leadership commit to a common goal; (2) appoint clinical champions and give them authority to engage other clinicians to improve timeliness of interventions; (3) map workflows and processes to rely heavily on the nursing staff's ability to evaluate and report severe sepsis screening results; (4) if available, design and deploy technology with the assistance of clinical informaticians (eg, to enable electronic health records-based continuous screening); (5) to determine success, consider tracking screening compliance and process, and outcome measures such as length of stay and mortality. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;S11:32-S39. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

A Comparative Study to Assess the Determinants and Outcomes of Sepsis Treated in Medical Wards and ICU in an Indian Teaching Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is the primary cause of death from infection worldwide. In resource-limited countries, increasing number of sepsis is managed in non-ICU settings, in Medical Wards (MW).

AIM

To compare the burden, aetiology and short term outcome of sepsis treated in MW with ICU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, observational, analytical study in sepsis patients in general MW and medical ICU in a tertiary care hospital. Two hundred forty five sepsis patients (MW=150, ICU=95), ≥18 years, selected randomly, were studied to compare aetiology, co-morbidities, clinical & microbiological profile and short-term outcome between MW and ICU sepsis. Sepsis following surgery, trauma, those transferred to/from ICU, those with other life threatening diseases were excluded. Chi-square test/Fisher's-exact test was used for comparing ratios. A 'p-value' <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sepsis was more common in elderly males, both in MW and ICU (median age: 56.7, 59.2 years; male: female ratios = 1.34:1, 1.63:1 respectively). Frequency of presenting symptoms, co-morbidities and sources of sepsis were similar in both groups (p>0.05). Frequency of positive microbiological culture, pattern of microbial flora and antimicrobial resistance patterns were similar in both groups (p>0.05). Number of antibiotics used was significantly higher in ICU compared to MW (p<0.01); multi-organ dysfunction and mortality were significantly higher in ICU settings (55.8% vs. 38.7%, p=0.04; 48.4% vs. 32.6%, p=0.041 respectively). While sepsis and severe sepsis were significantly higher in MW (34.6% vs. 22.1 %, p=0.03; 47.3% vs. 26.3%, p<0.01 respectively), septic shock was significantly higher in ICU (51.6% vs. 18.0%, p<0.01). Mortality in both settings was highest in septic shock (55.5% and 61.2%, p>0.05) and multi-organ dysfunction (55.1% and 64.2%, p>0.05). Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter in MW than ICU (7.3 vs. 11.0 days, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study aimed to identify determinants and outcome of sepsis in MW and compare with ICU settings. Antibiotic usage in the two settings differed: concurrent use of ≥3 antibiotics, and carbapenems & linezolid usage were significantly higher in ICU compared to MW. Sepsis in MW had significantly lower incidence of multi-organ failure, lower mortality and shorter hospital stay compared to ICU.

Crossing the handover chasm: Clinicians' perceptions of barriers to the early detection and timely management of severe sepsis and septic shock

PURPOSE

The purpose was to identify barriers to the early detection and timely management of severe sepsis throughout the emergency department (ED), general ward (GW), intermediate care unit (IMC), and the intensive care unit (ICU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five multicenter focus group discussions with 29 clinicians were conducted. Discussions were based on a moderation guide were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis was performed according to the principles of the concept mapping method and the framework approach.

RESULTS

The major causes of the delayed detection and treatment could be summarized in a framework of communication errors and handover difficulties throughout patients' course of treatment, which can be divided into 5 core areas: inadequate histories before hospital admission; poorly coordinated handovers between the ambulance service and the ED; delayed patient transfer between the ED and the GW as well as delays in patient transfers between the GW and the ICU by, for example, a lack of bed capacity and a shortage of staff. Generally, participants from all wards mentioned that the urgency with which septic patients needed to be treated was not communicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows the need to improve intra- and interunit handover processes in hospital care, which would ensure a holistic treatment concept, thereby improving patient care.

Identifying Patients With Sepsis on the Hospital Wards

Sepsis contributes to up to half of all deaths in hospitalized patients, and early interventions, such as appropriate antibiotics, have been shown to improve outcomes. Most research has focused on early identification and treatment of patients with sepsis in the ED and the ICU; however, many patients acquire sepsis on the general wards. The goal of this review is to discuss recent advances in the detection of sepsis in patients on the hospital wards. We discuss data highlighting the benefits and limitations of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for screening patients with sepsis, such as its low specificity, as well as newly described scoring systems, including the proposed role of the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. Challenges specific to detecting sepsis on the wards are discussed, and future directions that use big data approaches and automated alert systems are highlighted.

Early intervention of patients at risk for acute respiratory failure and prolonged mechanical ventilation with a checklist aimed at the prevention of organ failure: protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedged cluster trial of PROOFCheck

INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) often presents and progresses outside of the intensive care unit. However, recognition and treatment of acute critical illness is often delayed with inconsistent adherence to evidence-based care known to decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and complications of critical illness. The goal of this trial is to determine whether the implementation of an electronic medical record-based early alert for progressive respiratory failure coupled with a checklist to promote early compliance to best practice in respiratory failure can improve the outcomes of patients at risk for prolonged respiratory failure and death.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pragmatic stepped-wedged cluster clinical trial involving 6 hospitals is planned. The study will include adult hospitalised patients identified as high risk for MV >48 hours or death because they were mechanically ventilated outside of the operating room or they were identified as high risk for ARF on the Accurate Prediction of PROlonged VEntilation (APPROVE) score. Patients with advanced directives limiting intubation will be excluded. The intervention will consist of (1) automated identification and notification of clinician of high-risk patients by APPROVE or by invasive MV and (2) checklist of evidence-based practices in ARF (Prevention of Organ Failure Checklist-PROOFCheck). APPROVE and PROOFCheck will be developed in the pretrial period. Primary outcome is hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, ventilator and organ failure-free days and 6-month and 12-month mortality. Predefined subgroup analysis of patients with limitation of aggressive care after study entry is planned. Generalised estimating equations will be used to compare patients in the intervention phase with the control phase, adjusting for clustering within hospitals and time.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the institutional review boards. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02488174.

Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is the focus of national quality improvement programs and a recent public reporting measure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, diagnosing sepsis requires interpreting nonspecific signs and can therefore be subjective. We sought to quantify interobserver variability in diagnosing sepsis.

METHODS

We distributed five case vignettes of patients with suspected or confirmed infection and organ dysfunction to a sample of practicing intensivists. Respondents classified cases as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or none of the above. Interobserver variability was calculated using Fleiss' κ for the five-level classification, and for answers dichotomized as severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock and any sepsis category (sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock) versus not-sepsis.

RESULTS

Ninety-four physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (88%) identified as critical care specialists; other specialties included pulmonology (39%), anesthesia (19%), surgery (9%), and emergency medicine (9%). Respondents had been in practice for a median of 8 years, and 90% practiced at academic hospitals. Almost all respondents (83%) felt strongly or somewhat confident in their ability to apply the traditional consensus sepsis definitions. However, overall interrater agreement in sepsis diagnoses was poor (Fleiss' κ 0.29). When responses were dichotomized into severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock or any sepsis category versus not-sepsis, agreement was still poor (Fleiss' κ 0.23 and 0.18, respectively). Seventeen percent of respondents classified one of the five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock, 27.7% rated two cases, 33.0% respondents rated three cases, 19.2% rated four cases, and 3.2% rated all five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock. Among respondents who felt strongly confident in their ability to use sepsis definitions (n = 45), agreement was no better (Fleiss' κ 0.28 for the five-category classification, and Fleiss' κ 0.21 for the dichotomized severe sepsis/septic shock classification). Cases were felt to be extremely or very realistic in 74% of responses; only 3% were deemed unrealistic.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosing sepsis is extremely subjective and variable. Objective criteria and standardized methodology are needed to enhance consistency and comparability in sepsis research, surveillance, benchmarking, and reporting.

Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

IMPORTANCE

Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.

Bloodstream infections in internal medicine

Bloodstream infections (BSI) carry a heavy burden of morbidity and mortality in modern internal medicine wards (IMW). These wards are often filled with elderly subjects with several risk factors for BSI, such as multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, immunosuppression, and indwelling devices. Diagnosing BSI in such a setting might require a high degree of suspicion, since the clinical presentation could be affected by underlying conditions and concomitant medications, which might delay the administration of an appropriate antimicrobial therapy, an event strongly and unfavorably influencing survival. Furthermore, selecting the appropriate antimicrobial therapy to treat these patients is becoming an increasingly complex task in which all possible benefits and costs should be carefully analyzed from patient and public health perspectives. Only a specialized, continuous, and interdisciplinary approach could really improve the management of IMW patients in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance and complexity of care.

Objective Sepsis Surveillance Using Electronic Clinical Data

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of surveillance of severe sepsis using electronic health record clinical data vs claims and to compare incidence and mortality trends using both methods.

DESIGN

We created an electronic health record-based surveillance definition for severe sepsis using clinical indicators of infection (blood culture and antibiotic orders) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and/or abnormal laboratory values). We reviewed 1,000 randomly selected medical charts to characterize the definition's accuracy and stability over time compared with a claims-based definition requiring infection and organ dysfunction codes. We compared incidence and mortality trends from 2003-2012 using both methods.

SETTING

Two US academic hospitals.

PATIENTS

Adult inpatients.

RESULTS

The electronic health record-based clinical surveillance definition had stable and high sensitivity over time (77% in 2003-2009 vs 80% in 2012, P=.58) whereas the sensitivity of claims increased (52% in 2003-2009 vs 67% in 2012, P=.02). Positive predictive values for claims and clinical surveillance definitions were comparable (55% vs 53%, P=.65) and stable over time. From 2003 to 2012, severe sepsis incidence imputed from claims rose by 72% (95% CI, 57%-88%) and absolute mortality declined by 5.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-6.7%). In contrast, incidence using the clinical surveillance definition increased by 7.7% (95% CI, -1.1% to 17%) and mortality declined by 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis surveillance using clinical data is more sensitive and more stable over time compared with claims and can be done electronically. This may enable more reliable estimates of sepsis burden and trends.

Sepsis: An update in management

Hospitalists are a critical link in providing evidence-based care for patients with sepsis across the disease spectrum, from early recognition to recovery. The past decade of sepsis research has led to significant findings that will change clinical practice for hospital medicine practitioners. Although the incidence of severe sepsis in the United States has continued to rise, in-hospital mortality has declined. Management of the spectrum of sepsis disorders is no longer restricted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This review article will provide an update in the management of sepsis for hospitalists based on recently published pivotal studies. The expanding evidence base in sepsis includes early goal-directed therapy/clinical endpoints/sepsis bundles, antibiotics and source control, volume resuscitation, ICU considerations (including the use of insulin and corticosteroids), mortality/complications, and the newly recognized condition of "sepsis survivorship".

Adequate antibiotic therapy prior to ICU admission in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock reduces hospital mortality

Introduction

In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock as cause of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, we analyze the impact on mortality of adequate antimicrobial therapy initiated before ICU admission.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study enrolling patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock from January 2008 to September 2013. The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. We considered two groups for comparisons: patients who received adequate antibiotic treatment before or after the admission to the ICU.

Results

A total of 926 septic patients were admitted to ICU, and 638 (68.8%) had available microbiological isolation: 444 (69.6%) received adequate empirical antimicrobial treatment prior to ICU and 194 (30.4%) after admission. Global hospital mortality in patients that received treatment before ICU admission, between 0-6h ICU, 6–12h ICU, 12–24h ICU and after 24 hours since ICU admission were 31.3, 53.2, 57.1, 50 and 50.8% (p<0.001). The multivariate analysis showed that urinary focus (odds ratio (OR) 0.20; 0.09–0.42; p<0.001) and adequate treatment prior to ICU admission (OR 0.37; 0.24–0.56; p<0.001) were protective factors whereas APACHE II score (OR 1.10; 1.07–1.14; p<0.001), septic shock (OR 2.47; 1.57–3.87; p<0.001), respiratory source (OR 1.91; 1.12–3.21; p=0.016), cirrhosis (OR 3.74; 1.60–8.76; p=0.002) and malignancy (OR 1.65; 1.02–2.70; p=0.042) were variables independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Adequate treatment prior to ICU was a protective factor for mortality in patients with severe sepsis (n=236) or in septic shock (n=402).

Conclusions

The administration of adequate antimicrobial therapy before ICU admission is decisive for the survival of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Our efforts should be directed to assure the correct administration antibiotics before ICU admission in patients with sepsis.

Clinical diagnosis of sepsis and the combined use of biomarkers and culture- and non-culture-based assays

Sepsis is among the most common causes of death in hospitalized patients, and early recognition followed by immediate initiation of therapy is an important concept to improve survival in these patients. According to the definition of sepsis, diagnosis of sepsis requires the recognition of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) caused by infection as well as recognition of possible infection-related organ dysfunctions for diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. Both SIRS and organ dysfunctions may occur frequently in hospitalized patients for various reasons. However, the fast recognition of acute infection as a cause of SIRS and newly developed organ dysfunction may be a demanding task since culture-based results of microbiological samples will be available only days after onset of symptoms. Biomarkers and PCR-based pathogen detection may help the physician in differentiating SIRS from sepsis. Procalcitonin (PCT) is the best investigated biomarker for this purpose. Furthermore, the current data support the usage of PCT for guidance of antimicrobial therapy. C-reactive protein (CRP) may be used to monitor the course of infection but has only limited discriminative capabilities. Interleukin-6 is widely used for its fast response to the infectious stimulus, but conclusive data for the application of this biomarker are missing. None of the available biomarkers can by itself reliably differentiate SIRS from sepsis but can aid and shorten the decision process. PCR-based pathogen detection can theoretically shorten the recognition of the underlying pathogen to about 8 h. However, this technique is expensive and requires additional staff in the laboratory; controlled prospective studies are missing. Although current studies suggest that PCR-based pathogen detection may be useful to shorten time to adequate antimicrobial therapy and diagnose invasive Candida infections, no general recommendations about the application of PCR for the diagnosis of sepsis can be given.

Evolving trends in the epidemiology, resource utilization, and outcomes of pregnancy-associated severe sepsis: a population-based cohort study

Background

Infections are a well-known complication of pregnancy. However, pregnancy-associated severe sepsis (PASS) has not been as well-characterized, with limited population-level data reported to date. We performed a population-based study of the evolving patterns of the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes of PASS in Texas over the past decade.

Methods

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify pregnancy-associated hospitalizations and PASS hospitalizations for the years 2001 - 2010. The Texas Center for Health Statistics reports of live births, abortions and fetal deaths, and a previously reported population-based, age-specific linkage study on miscarriage were used to derive the annual total estimated pregnancies (TEPs). The incidence, demographics, clinical characteristics, resource utilization and outcomes of PASS were examined. Logistic regression modeling was used to explore the predictors of PASS and its associated mortality.

Results

There were 4,060,201 pregnancy-associated hospitalizations and 1,007 PASS hospitalizations during study period. The incidence of PASS was increased by 236% over the past decade, rising from 11 to 26 hospitalizations per 100,000 TEPs. The key changes between 2001 - 2002 and 2009 - 2010 within PASS hospitalizations included: admission to ICU 78% vs. 90% (P = 0.002); development of ≥ 3 organ failures 9% vs. 35% (P < 0.0001); and inflation-adjusted median hospital charges (2,010 dollars) $64,034 vs. $89,895 (P = 0.0141). Hospital mortality (11%) remained unchanged during study period. Chronic liver disease (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 41.4) and congestive heart failure (CHF) (aOR 20.5) were associated with the highest risk of PASS, in addition to black race, poverty, drug abuse, and lack of health insurance. The highest risk of death was among women with HIV infection (aOR 45.5), need for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.5), drug abuse (aOR 3.0), and lacking health insurance (aOR 2.9).

Conclusions

The incidence, severity, and fiscal burden of PASS rose substantially over the past decade. Case fatality was lower than that for severe sepsis in the general population. Chronic liver disease and CHF pose especially high risk of PASS. Pregnant women with history of drug abuse and lacking health insurance are at high risk of both developing and dying with PASS, requiring extra vigilance for early diagnosis and targeted intervention.

Validity of administrative data in recording sepsis: a systematic review

Introduction

Administrative health data have been used to study sepsis in large population-based studies. The validity of these study findings depends largely on the quality of the administrative data source and the validity of the case definition used. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the validity of case definitions of sepsis used with administrative data.

Methods

Embase and MEDLINE were searched for published articles with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coded data used to define sepsis. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate. Data were abstracted from all eligible full-text articles, including ICD-9- and/or ICD-10-based case definitions, sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results

Of 2,317 individual studies identified, 12 full-text articles met all eligibility criteria. A total of 38 sepsis case definitions were tested, which included over 130 different ICD codes. The most common ICD-9 codes were 038.x, 790.7 and 995.92, and the most common ICD-10 codes were A40.x and A41.x. The PPV was reported in ten studies and ranged from 5.6% to 100%, with a median of 50%. Other tests of diagnostic accuracy were reported only in some studies. Sn ranged from 5.9% to 82.3%; Sp ranged from 78.3% to 100%; and NPV ranged from 62.1% to 99.7%.

Conclusions

The validity of administrative data in recording sepsis varied substantially across individual studies and ICD definitions. Our work may serve as a reference point for consensus towards an improved and harmonized ICD-coded definition of sepsis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0847-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mobilization in severe sepsis: an integrative review

Severe sepsis is a leading cause of long-term morbidity in the United States. Up to half of severe sepsis is treated in non–intensive care unit (ICU) settings, making it applicable to hospitalist practice. Evidence has demonstrated benefits from physical therapy (PT) in myriad conditions; whether PT may benefit severe sepsis patients either within or outside the ICU is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a review of the literature to understand whether early mobilization improves outcomes in patients with severe sepsis in non-ICU settings. We summarized the pathophysiology of functional decline in severe sepsis, the efficacy of PT in other patient populations, and the potential rationale for PT interventions in patients with severe sepsis. Multiple databases were searched for keywords including length of stay, mortality,costs, mobilization, and PT. Two authors (S.G. and V.C.) independently determined the eligibility of each study.A secondary review including studies of any infectious pathology with PT interventions or sepsis patients within the ICU was also conducted. Our search did not yield any primary literature regarding the impact of mobilization on severe sepsis outcomes in non-ICU settings. Only 1 retrospective study showed potential benefit of therapy in sepsis patients in the ICU. Similarly, in non-ICU settings, only 1 study that included patients with bacterial pneumonia reported outcomes after implementing an intervention consisting of early mobilization. These findings suggest that scant data regarding the efficacy of early mobilization following severe sepsis exist. Because hospitalists often care for this patient population, an opportunity for research in this area exists.

Clinical Decision Support for Early Recognition of Sepsis

Sepsis is an inflammatory response triggered by infection, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Early recognition and treatment can reverse the inflammatory response, with evidence of improved patient outcomes. One challenge clinicians face is identifying the inflammatory syndrome against the background of the patient's infectious illness and comorbidities. An approach to this problem is implementation of computerized early warning tools for sepsis. This multicenter retrospective study sought to determine clinimetric performance of a cloud-based computerized sepsis clinical decision support system (CDS), understand the epidemiology of sepsis, and identify opportunities for quality improvement. Data encompassed 6200 adult hospitalizations from 2012 through 2013. Of 13% patients screened-in, 51% were already suspected to have an infection when the system activated. This study focused on a patient cohort screened-in before infection was suspected; median time from arrival to CDS activation was 3.5 hours, and system activation to diagnostic collect was another 8.6 hours.