Pitfalls in the Treatment of Sepsis

Midregional proadrenomedullin safely reduces hospitalization in a low severity cohort with infections in the ED: a randomized controlled multi-centre interventional pilot study

INTRODUCTION

The midregional fragment of proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is known to provide accurate short-, mid- and long term prognostic information in the triage and multi-dimensional risk assessment of patients in the emergency department (ED). In two independent observational cohorts MR-proADM values identified low disease severity patients without risk of disease progression in the ED with no 28 days mortality that wouldn´t require hospitalization. In this interventional study we want to show that the combination of an MR-proADM algorithm with clinical assessment is able to identify low risk patients not requiring hospitalization to safely reduce the number of hospital admissions.

METHODS

A randomized-controlled interventional multicenter study in 4 EDs in Spain. The study protocol was approved by Ethics Committees. Control arm patients received Standard Care. MR-proADM guided arm patients with low MR-proADM value (≤0.87 nmol/L) were treated as out-patients, with high MR-proADM value (>0.87 nmol/L) were hospitalized. The hospitalization rate was compared between the study arms.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients with suspicion of infection were enrolled. In the MR-proADM guided arm the hospital admission rate in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 17% lower than in the control arm (40.6% vs. 57.6%, p=0.024) and 20% lower in the per protocol (PP) population (37.2% vs. 57.6%, p=0.009). No deaths of out-patients and no significant difference for the safety endpoints readmission and representation rates were observed. The readmission rate was only slightly higher in the MR-proADM guided arm compared to the control arm (PP population: at 14 days 9.3% vs. 7.1%, difference 2.1% (95% CI: -11.0% to 15.2%); and at 28 days 11.1% vs. 9.5%, difference 1.6% (95% CI: -12.2% to 15.4%)). The rate of 28 days representation was slightly lower in the MR-proADM guided arm compared to the control arm (20.4% vs. 26.2%, difference -5.8% (95% CI: -25.0% to 13.4%); PP population).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a MR-proADM algorithm optimizes ED workflows efficiently and sustainably. Hospitals can highly benefit from a reduced rate of hospitalizations by 20% using MR-proADM. The safety in the MR-proADM guided study arm was similar to the Standard Care arm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03770533.

Biomarkers and clinical scores to identify patient populations at risk of delayed antibiotic administration or intensive care admission

BACKGROUND

The performance of blood biomarkers (mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and lactate) and clinical scores (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and quick SOFA) was compared to identify patient populations at risk of delayed treatment initiation and disease progression after presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a suspected infection.

METHODS

A prospective observational study across three EDs. Biomarker and clinical score values were calculated upon presentation and 72 h, and logistic and Cox regression used to assess the strength of association. Primary outcomes comprised of 28-day mortality prediction and delayed antibiotic administration or intensive care (ICU) admission, whilst secondary outcomes identified subsequent disease progression.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty-four patients were enrolled with hospitalisation, ICU admission, and infection-related 28-day mortality rates of 72.8%, 3.4%, and 4.4%, respectively. MR-proADM and NEWS had the strongest association with hospitalisation and the requirement for antibiotic administration, whereas MR-proADM alone had the strongest association with ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 5.8 [3.1 - 10.8]) and mortality (HR [95% CI]: 3.8 [2.2 - 6.5]). Patient subgroups with high MR-proADM concentrations (≥ 1.77 nmol/L) and low NEWS (< 5 points) values had significantly higher rates of ICU admission (8.1% vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), hospital readmission (18.9% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001), infection-related mortality (13.5% vs. 0.2%; p < 0.001), and disease progression (29.7% vs. 4.9%; p < 0.001) than corresponding patients with low MR-proADM concentrations. ICU admission was delayed by 1.5 [0.25 - 5.0] days in patients with high MR-proADM and low NEWS values compared to corresponding patients with high NEWS values, despite similar 28-day mortality rates (13.5% vs. 16.5%). Antibiotics were withheld in 17.4% of patients with high MR-proADM and low NEWS values, with higher subsequent rates of ICU admission (27.3% vs. 4.8%) and infection-related hospital readmission (54.5% vs. 14.3%) compared to those administered antibiotics during ED treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low severity signs of infection but high MR-proADM concentrations had an increased likelihood of subsequent disease progression, delayed antibiotic administration or ICU admission. Appropriate triage decisions and the rapid use of antibiotics in patients with high MR-proADM concentrations may constitute initial steps in escalating or intensifying early treatment strategies.

Clinical- vs. model-based selection of patients suspected of sepsis for direct-from-blood rapid diagnostics in the emergency department: a retrospective study

Selecting high-risk patients may improve the cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostics. Our objective was to assess whether model-based selection or clinical selection is better for selecting high-risk patients with a high rate of bacteremia and/or DNAemia. This study involved a model-based, retrospective selection of patients from a cohort from which clinicians selected high-risk patients for rapid direct-from-blood diagnostic testing. Patients were included if they were suspected of sepsis and had blood cultures ordered at the emergency department. Patients were selected by the model by adding those with the highest probability of bacteremia until the number of high-risk patients selected by clinicians was reached. The primary outcome was bacteremia rate. Secondary outcomes were DNAemia rate, and 30-day mortality. Data were collected for 1395 blood cultures. Following exclusion, 1142 patients were included in the analysis. In each high-risk group, 220/1142 were selected, where 55 were selected both by clinicians and the model. For the remaining 165 in each group, the model selected for a higher bacteremia rate (74/165, 44.8% vs. 45/165, 27.3%, p = 0.001), and a higher 30-day mortality (49/165, 29.7% vs. 19/165, 11.5%, p = 0.00004) than the clinically selected group. The model outperformed clinicians in selecting patients with a high rate of bacteremia. Using such a model for risk stratification may contribute towards closing the gap in cost between rapid and culture-based diagnostics.

Early Administration of Intravenous Fluids in Sepsis: Pros and Cons

Fluid resuscitation in the management of patients with sepsis and severe sepsis has been considered the standard of care for almost 2 decades. The rationale for fluid resuscitation is related to improvement in cardiac output and organ perfusion. Recent research evidence challenges the use of fluid resuscitation in patients diagnosed with sepsis. Research is needed to determine the timing of fluid administration, as well as the volume and type of fluid to achieve positive patient outcomes. This article discusses the pros and cons of early fluid administration in the management of patients with sepsis.

Emergency Department disposition decisions and associated mortality and costs in ICU patients with suspected infection

Background

Following emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission.

Methods

We used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model.

Results

A total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P < 0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22–2.50; P < 0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32–6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P < 0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2096-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department

Background

We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of qSOFA as a risk stratification tool for patients admitted with infection compared to traditional SIRS criteria or our triage system; the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS).

Methods

The study was an observational cohort study performed at one Emergency Department (ED) in an urban university teaching hospital in Norway, with approximately 20,000 visits per year. All patients >16 years presenting with symptoms or clinical signs suggesting an infection (n = 1535) were prospectively included in the study from January 1 to December 31, 2012. At arrival in the ED, vital signs were recorded and all patients were triaged according to RETTS vital signs, presenting infection, and sepsis symptoms. These admission data were also used to calculate qSOFA and SIRS. Treatment outcome was later retrieved from the patients’ electronic records (EPR) and mortality data from the Norwegian population registry.

Results

Of the 1535 admitted patients, 108 (7.0%) fulfilled the Sepsis2 criteria for severe sepsis. The qSOFA score ≥2 identified only 33 (sensitivity 0.32, specificity 0.98) of the patients with severe sepsis, whilst the RETTS-alert ≥ orange identified 92 patients (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.55). Twenty-six patients died within 7 days of admission; four (15.4%) of them had a qSOFA ≥2, and 16 (61.5%) had RETTS ≥ orange alert. Of the 68 patients that died within 30 days, only eight (11.9%) scored ≥2 on the qSOFA, and 45 (66.1%) had a RETTS ≥ orange alert.

Discussion

In order to achieve timely treatment for sepsis, a sensitive screening tool is more important than a specific one. Our study is the fourth study were qSOFA finds few of the sepsis cases in prehospital or at arrival to the ED. We add information on the RETTS triage system, the two highest acuity levels together had a high sensitivity (85%) for identifying sepsis at arrival to the ED - and thus, RETTS should not be replaced by qSOFA as a screening and trigger tool for sepsis at arrival.

Conclusion

In this observational cohort study, qSOFA failed to identify two thirds of the patients admitted to an ED with severe sepsis. Further, qSOFA failed to be a risk stratification tool as the sensitivity to predict 7-day and 30-day mortality was low. The sensitivity was poorer than the other warning scores already in use at the study site, RETTS-triage and the SIRS criteria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-017-0399-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.