What Definition Should We Use for Sepsis and Septic Shock?

Outcomes and Predictors of 28-Day Mortality in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies and Septic Shock Defined by Sepsis-3 Criteria

BACKGROUND

To describe short-term outcomes and independent predictors of 28-dayx mortality in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and septic shock defined by the new Third International Consensus Definitions (Sepsis-3) criteria.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock from April 2016 to March 2019. Demographic and clinical features and short-term outcomes were collected. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient characteristics, logistic regression to identify predictors of 28-day mortality, and Kaplan-Meier plots to assess survival.

RESULTS

Among the 459 hematologic patients with septic shock admitted to the ICU, 109 (23.7%) had received hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median age was 63 years (range, 18-89 years), and 179 (39%) were women. Nonsurvivors had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (P=.007), longer length of stay before ICU admission (P=.01), and greater illness severity at diagnosis and throughout the hospital course (P<.001). The mortality rate at 28 days was 67.8% and increased with increasing sequential organ failure assessment score on admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20), respiratory failure (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49-6.51), and maximum lactate level (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22). Aminoglycosides administration (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69), serum albumin (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65) were associated with lower 28-day mortality. Life support limitations were present in 81.6% of patients at death. At 90 days, 19.4% of the patients were alive.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite efforts to enhance survival, septic shock in patients with hematologic malignancies is still associated with high mortality rates and poor 90-day survival. These results demonstrate the need for an urgent call to action with higher awareness, including the further evaluation of interventions such as earlier ICU admission, aminoglycosides administration, and G-CSF treatment.

Postimplementation Evaluation of a Machine Learning-Based Deterioration Risk Alert to Enhance Sepsis Outcome Improvements

Machine learning-based early warning systems (EWSs) can detect clinical deterioration more accurately than point-score tools. In patients with sepsis, however, the timing and scope of sepsis interventions relative to an advanced EWS alert are not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the timing and frequency of fluid bolus therapy, new antibiotics, and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status relative to the time of an advanced EWS alert. We conducted 2 rounds of chart reviews of patients with an EWS alert admitted to community hospitals of a large integrated health system in Northern California (round 1: n = 21; round 2: n = 47). We abstracted patient characteristics and process measures of sepsis intervention and performed summary statistics. Sepsis decedents were older and sicker at admission and alert time. Most EWS alerts occurred near admission, and most sepsis interventions occurred before the first alert. Of 14 decedents, 12 (86%) had a DNR order before death. Fluid bolus therapy and new intravenous antibiotics frequently occurred before the alert, suggesting a potential overlap between sepsis care in the emergency department and the first alert following admission. Two tactics to minimize alerts that may not motivate new sepsis interventions are (1) locking out the alert during the immediate time after hospital admission; and (2) triaging and reviewing patients with alerts outside of the unit before activating a bedside response. Some decedents may have been on a palliative/end-of-life trajectory, because DNR orders were very common among decedents. Nurse leaders sponsoring or leading machine learning projects should consider tactics to reduce false-positive and clinically meaningless alerts dispatched to clinical staff.

Rethinking the concept of sepsis and septic shock

Sepsis is a major global health problem and represents a challenge for physicians all over the world. The knowledge of sepsis and septic shock is a topic of interest among the scientific community and society in general. New guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock were developed in 2016, providing an update on this area. In Sepsis-3 new definitions for sepsis and septic shock were published. The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss and compare the new criteria of 2016 with the old criteria, purposing at the same time an alternative approach for this topic. SOFA criteria (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) are more complete, but too extensive and usually difficult to apply outside the intensive care units, therefore inducing potentially delay in the proper treatment. We purpose combined criteria for the selection of sepsis patients. Initially, we could apply qSOFA (quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment) criteria, due to its easy application, associated with the SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria, allowing to select the patients who are infected and need faster treatment. In that way we would use the best of old and newest criteria, allowing the early selection of patients who are infected and require faster treatment, while the search for a better and faster tool continues.

Sepsis as a model for improving diagnosis

Diagnostic safety could theoretically be improved by high-level interventions, such as improving clinical reasoning or eliminating system-related defects in care, or by focusing more specifically on a single problem or disease. In this review, we consider how the timely diagnosis of sepsis has evolved and improved as an example of the disease-focused approach. This progress has involved clarifying and revising the definitions of sepsis, efforts to raise awareness, faster and more reliable laboratory tests and a host of practice-level improvements based on health services research findings and recommendations. We conclude that this multi-faceted approach incorporating elements of the 'learning health system' model has improved the early recognition and treatment of sepsis, and propose that this model could be productively applied to improve timely diagnosis in other time-sensitive conditions.

SIRS in the Time of Sepsis-3

Severe sepsis is a common, deadly, and diagnostically vexing condition. Recent recommendations for diagnosing sepsis, referred to as consensus guidelines, provide a definition of sepsis and remove the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as a component of the diagnostic process. A concise definition of sepsis is welcomed. However, the approach to developing these guidelines, although thorough, had weaknesses. Emphasis is placed on mortality prediction rather than on early diagnosis. Diagnostic criteria are recommended to replace current criteria without evidence of any effect that their use would have on mortality. SIRS is a prevalent feature of patients with sepsis, should remain an important component of the diagnostic process, and remains a valuable term for discussing patients with life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by infection.