Can pre-hospital administration reduce time to initial antibiotic therapy in septic patients?

A newly developed, easy-to-use prehospital drug-derived score compared with three conventional scores: A prospective multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The use of medications by emergency medical services (EMS) is increasing. Conventional scores are time-consuming and therefore difficult to use in an emergency setting. For early decision-making, an easy-to-use score based on the medications administered by the EMS may have prognostic value. The primary objective of this study was to develop the prehospital drug-derived score (PDDS) for 2-day mortality.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, ambulance-based cohort study was conducted in adults with undifferentiated acute diseases treated by EMS and transferred to the emergency department. Demographic data, prehospital diagnosis data, prehospital medication and variables for the calculation of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS) were collected. The PDDS was developed and validated, establishing three levels of risk of 2-day mortality. The predictive capability of each score was determined by the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and compared using the Delong's test (p-value).

RESULTS

A total of 6401 patients were included. The PDDS included age and the use of norepinephrine, analgesics, neuromuscular blocking agents, diuretics, antihypertensive agents, tranexamic acid, and bicarbonate. The AUROC of PDDS was .86 (95% CI: .816-.903) versus NEWS2 .866 (95% CI: .822-.911), p = .828; versus REMS .885 (95% CI: .845-.924), p = .311; versus RAPS .886 (95% CI: .846-.926), p = .335, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The newly developed easy-to-use prehospital drug-derived PDDS score has an excellent predictive value of early mortality. The PDDS score was comparable to the conventional risk scores and therefore might serve as an alternative score in the prehospital emergency setting.

Time Savings and Safety of EMS Administration of Antibiotics for Open Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Early administration of antibiotics for open fractures reduces serious bone and soft tissue infections. The effectiveness of antibiotics in reducing these infections is time-dependent, with various surgical associations recommending administration within one hour of injury, or within one hour of patient arrival to the emergency department (ED). The extent to which prehospital antibiotic administration in these situations might reduce the time to treatment has not been previously reported. The purpose of this study was to describe current prehospital use of antibiotics for traumatic injury, to assess the safety of prehospital antibiotic administration, and to estimate the potential time-savings associated with antibiotic administration by EMS clinicians.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the 2019 through 2022 ESO Data Collaborative research data set. Included subjects were patients that had a linked ICD-10 code indicating an open extremity fracture and who received prehospital antibiotics. Time to antibiotic administration was calculated as the elapsed time from EMS dispatch until antibiotic administration. The minimum potential time saved by EMS antibiotic administration was calculated as the elapsed time from administration until ED arrival. To assess safety, epinephrine and diphenhydramine administration were used as proxies for the adverse events of anaphylaxis and minor allergic reactions.

RESULTS

There were 523 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. The median (and interquartile range [IQR]) elapsed time from EMS dispatch until antibiotic administration was 31 (IQR: 24-41) minutes. The median potential time savings associated with prehospital antibiotic administration was 15 (IQR: 8-22) minutes. Notably, 144 (27.5%) of the patients who received prehospital antibiotics had total prehospital times exceeding one hour. None of the patients who received antibiotics also received epinephrine for presumed anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

EMS clinicians were able to safely administer antibiotics to patients with open fractures a median of 15 min before arrival at the hospital, and 99% of the patients receiving antibiotics had them administered within one hour of EMS dispatch. EMS administration of antibiotics may be a safe way to increase compliance with recommendations for early antibiotic administration for open fractures.

Impact of Prehospital Antibiotics on in-Hospital Mortality in Emergency Medical Service Patients with Sepsis

Background

Sepsis is a life-threatening medical condition that requires early recognition and timely management to improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Administering antibiotics in the prehospital setting can be effective to reduce the time to antibiotic therapy, which may be crucial for sepsis patients. However, the impact of prehospital antibiotics on mortality in sepsis patients remains uncertain, and the current evidence to support this practice in middle-income countries is particularly limited.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective-prospective cohort study aimed at determining the impact of prehospital antibiotics on in-hospital mortality rates among adult patients with sepsis. The study included patients who received care from the advanced level of Emergency Medical Service between June 2020 and October 2022 and compared the mortality rates of patients who received prehospital antibiotics with those of their counterparts who did not.

Results

In this study, 180 patients with a mean age of 71.6 ± 15.7 years were included, of whom 68.9% experienced respiratory infections. The results demonstrated that the prehospital antibiotic group had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate (32.2%) than the non-prehospital antibiotic group (47.8%; p=0.034). After adjusting for confounding factors, the odds ratio was 0.304 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.82; p=0.018), indicating a 69.6% lower incidence of in-hospital mortality in the prehospital antibiotic group. Furthermore, the prehospital antibiotic group received antibiotics significantly earlier (16.0 ± 7.4 minutes) than the non-prehospital group (50.9 ± 29.4 minutes; p<0.001).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence to support the administration of antibiotics to sepsis patients in the prehospital setting, as this practice can reduce mortality rates. However, larger, multicenter studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the potential benefits of prehospital antibiotics in improving patient outcomes.

Derivation and internal validation of the screening to enhance prehospital identification of sepsis (SEPSIS) score in adults on arrival at the emergency department

Background

Prehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians.

Methods

We derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n = 38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n = 16063, 70%) and validation (n = 6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline.

Results

‘High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis’ was present in 3.7% of derivation (n = 593) and validation (n = 254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p < 0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84–0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score ≥ 5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31–0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96–0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23–0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96–0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7–18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78–0.88).

Conclusion

This is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0642-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.