Emergency Medical Services Care and Sepsis Trajectories

Effectiveness of a Novel Rapid Infusion Device and Clinician Education for Early Fluid Therapy by Emergency Medical Services in Sepsis Patients: A Pre-Post Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians are tasked with early fluid resuscitation for patients with sepsis. Traditional methods for prehospital fluid delivery are limited in speed and ease-of-use. We conducted a comparative effectiveness study of a novel rapid infusion device for prehospital fluid delivery in suspected sepsis patients.

METHODS

This pre-post observational study evaluated a hand-operated, rapid infusion device in a single large EMS system from July 2021-July 2022. Prior to device deployment, EMS clinicians completed didactic and simulation-based device training. Data were extracted from the EMS electronic health record. Eligible patients included adults with suspected sepsis treated by EMS with intravenous fluids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving goal fluid volume (at least 500 mL) prior to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, disposition, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between 6-month pre- and post-implementation periods (July-December 2021 and February-July 2022, respectively), adjusting for patient demographics, abnormal prehospital vital signs, and EMS transport interval.

RESULTS

Of 1,180 eligible patients (552 in the pre-implementation period; 628 in the post-implementation period), the mean age was 72 years old, 45% were female, and 25% were minority race-ethnicity. Median (interquartile range) fluid volume (in mL) increased between the pre- and post-implementation periods (600 [400,1,000] and 850 [500-1,000], respectively). Goal fluid volume was achieved in 70% of pre-implementation patients and 82% of post-implementation patients. In adjusted analysis, post-implementation patients were significantly more likely to receive goal fluid volume than pre-implementation patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.66). Pre-post in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.39)Conclusion: In a single EMS system, sepsis education and introduction of a rapid infusion device was associated with achieving goal fluid volume for suspected sepsis. Further research is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of infusion device implementation to improve sepsis patient outcomes.

Prehospital Fluid Administration for Suspected Sepsis in a Large EMS System: Opportunities to Improve Goal Fluid Delivery

OBJECTIVES

Despite EMS-implemented screening and treatment protocols for suspected sepsis patients, prehospital fluid therapy is variable. We sought to describe prehospital fluid administration in suspected sepsis patients, including demographic and clinical factors associated with fluid outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of adult patients from a large, county-wide EMS system from January 2018-February 2020 was identified. Patient care reports for suspected sepsis were included, as identified by EMS clinician impression of sepsis, or keywords "sepsis" or "septic" in the narrative. Outcomes were the proportions of suspected sepsis patients for whom intravenous (IV) therapy was attempted and those who received ≥500 mL IV fluid if IV access was successful. Associations between patient demographics and clinical factors with fluid outcomes were estimated with multivariable logistic regression adjusting for transport interval.

RESULTS

Of 4,082 suspected sepsis patients identified, the mean patient age was 72.5 (SD 16.2) years, 50.6% were female, and 23.8% were Black. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) transport interval was 16.5 (10.9-23.2) minutes. Of identified patients, 1,920 (47.0%) had IV fluid therapy attempted, and IV access was successful in 1,872 (45.9%). Of those with IV access, 1,061 (56.7%) received ≥500mL of fluid from EMS. In adjusted analyses, female (versus male) sex (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.90), Black (versus White) race (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.68), and end stage renal disease (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) were negatively associated with attempted IV therapy. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg (OR 3.89, 95% CI 3.25-4.65) and respiratory rate >20 (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.61-2.23) were positively associated with attempted IV therapy. Female sex (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88) and congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75) were negatively associated with receiving goal fluid volume while SBP <90 mmHg (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.83-2.88) and abnormal temperature (>100.4 F or <96 F) (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16-1.73) were positively associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of EMS sepsis patients had IV therapy attempted, and of those, approximately half met fluid volume goal, especially when hypotensive and no CHF. Further studies are needed on improving EMS sepsis training and prehospital fluid delivery.

Combination of Prehospital NT-proBNP with qSOFA and NEWS to Predict Sepsis and Sepsis-Related Mortality

Background. The aim of this study was to assess the role of prehospital point-of-care N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide to predict sepsis, septic shock, or in-hospital sepsis-related mortality. Methods. A prospective, emergency medical service-delivered, prognostic, cohort study of adults evacuated by ambulance and admitted to emergency department between January 2020 and May 2021. The discriminative power of the predictive variable was assessed through a prediction model trained using the derivation cohort and evaluated by the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic on the validation cohort. Results. A total of 1,360 patients were enrolled with medical disease in the study. The occurrence of sepsis, septic shock, and in-hospital sepsis-related mortality was 6.4% (67 cases), 4.2% (44 cases), and 6.1% (64 cases). Prehospital National Early Warning Score 2 had superior predictive validity than quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide for detecting sepsis and septic shock, but N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide outperformed both scores in in-hospital sepsis-related mortality estimation. Application of N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide to subgroups of the other two scores improved the identification of sepsis, septic shock, and sepsis-related mortality in the group of patients with low-risk scoring. Conclusions. The incorporation of N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide in prehospital care combined with already existing scores could improve the identification of sepsis, septic shock, and sepsis-related mortality.