Multifaceted interventions to decrease mortality in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock-a quality improvement project

Quality Improvement to Promote Sepsis Reassessment: The Sepsis Reassessment Protocol Improvement Project (SRPIP)

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines into practice has demonstrated improved outcomes.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Compliance with a sepsis protocol, based on the SSC guidelines, in an urban teaching hospital was below the national average.

METHODS

A pre- and posttest intervention design was used to improve clinician knowledge, confidence, and compliance with the protocol.

INTERVENTIONS

Educational modules were developed on the SSC guidelines and reminder system alerts (RSA) for timely revaluation of patients with sepsis and lactate monitoring were implemented.

RESULTS

A total of 33 (48%) clinicians participated. There was an increase in knowledge, documentation of sepsis reassessment, and serum lactate monitoring. There was an improvement in clinician perceptions following the initiative.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that education, combined with RSAs, can improve protocol knowledge and compliance.

Outcome after intubation for septic shock with respiratory distress and hemodynamic compromise: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory failure in septic patients contributes to higher in-hospital mortality. Intubation may improve outcome but there are no specific criteria for intubation. Intubation of septic patients with respiratory distress and hemodynamic compromise may result in clinical deterioration and precipitate cardiovascular failure. The decision to intubate is complex and multifactorial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of intubation in patients with respiratory distress and predominant hemodynamic instability within 24 h after ICU admission for septic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry of adult patients with septic shock admitted to the medical ICU at Mayo Clinic, between April 30, 2014 and December 31, 2017. Septic shock was defined by persistent lactate > 4 mmol/L, mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, or vasopressor use after 30 mL/kg fluid boluses and suspected or confirmed infection. Patients who remained hospitalized in the ICU at 24 h were separated into intubated while in the ICU and non-intubated groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The first analysis used linear regression models and the second analysis used time-dependent propensity score matching to match intubated to non-intubated patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 358 (33%) ICU patients were eventually intubated after their ICU admission and 738 (67%) were not. Intubated patients were younger, transferred more often from an outside facility, more critically ill, had more lung infection, and achieved blood pressure goals more often, but lactate normalization within 6 h occurred less often. Among those who remained hospitalized in the ICU 24 h after sepsis diagnosis, the crude in-hospital mortality was higher in intubated than non-intubated patients, 89 (26%) vs. 82 (12%), p < 0.001, as was the ICU mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. After adjustment, intubation showed no effect on hospital mortality but resulted in fewer hospital-free days through day 28. One-to-one propensity resulted in similar conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Intubation within 24 h of sepsis was not associated with hospital mortality but resulted in fewer 28-day hospital-free days. Although intubation remains a high-risk procedure, we did not identify an increased risk in mortality among septic shock patients with predominant hemodynamic compromise.

Development and performance of a novel vasopressor-driven mortality prediction model in septic shock

Background

Vasoactive medications are essential in septic shock, but are not fully incorporated into current mortality prediction risk scores. We sought to develop a novel mortality prediction model for septic shock incorporating quantitative vasoactive medication usage.

Methods

Quantitative vasopressor use was calculated in a cohort of 5352 septic shock patients and compared using norepinephrine equivalents (NEE), cumulative vasopressor index and the vasoactive inotrope score models. Having best discrimination prediction, log₁₀NEE was selected for further development of a novel prediction model for 28-day and 1-year mortality via backward stepwise logistic regression. This model termed ‘MAVIC’ (Mechanical ventilation, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation-III, Vasopressors, Inotropes, Charlson comorbidity index) was then compared to Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation-III (APACHE-III) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores in an independent validation cohort for its accuracy in predicting 28-day and 1-year mortality.

Measurements and main results

The MAVIC model was superior to the APACHE-III and SOFA scores in its ability to predict 28-day mortality (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.73 vs. 0.66 and 0.60) and 1-year mortality (AUROC 0.74 vs. 0.66 and 0.60), respectively.

Conclusions

The incorporation of quantitative vasopressor usage into a novel ‘MAVIC’ model results in superior 28-day and 1-year mortality risk prediction in a large cohort of patients with septic shock.

Evidence Underpinning the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1): A Systematic Review

This article has been corrected. To see what has changed, please read the Letter to the Editor and the authors' response. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

Background

The Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), the sepsis performance measure introduced in 2015 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requires the reporting of up to 5 hemodynamic interventions, as many as 141 tasks, and 3 hours to document for a single patient.

Purpose

To evaluate whether moderate- or high-level evidence shows that use of the 2015 SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improves survival in adults with sepsis.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 November 2017 with no language restrictions.

Study Selection

Randomized and observational studies of death among adults with sepsis who received versus those who did not receive either the entire SEP-1 bundle or 1 or more SEP-1 hemodynamic interventions, including serial lactate measurements; a fluid infusion of 30 mL/kg of body weight; and assessment of volume status and tissue perfusion with a focused examination, bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography, or fluid responsiveness testing.

Data Extraction

Two investigators independently extracted study data and assessed each study's risk of bias; 4 authors rated level of evidence by consensus using CMS criteria published in 2013. High- or moderate-level evidence required studies to have no confounders and low risk of bias.

Data Synthesis

Of 56 563 references, 20 studies (18 reports) met inclusion criteria. One single-center observational study reported lower in-hospital mortality after implementation of the SEP-1 bundle. Sixteen studies (2 randomized and 14 observational) reported increased survival with serial lactate measurements or 30-mL/kg fluid infusions. None of the 17 studies were free of confounders or at low risk of bias. In 3 randomized trials, fluid responsiveness testing did not alter survival.

Limitations

Few trials, poor-quality and confounded studies, and no studies (with survival outcomes) of the focused examination or bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography. Use of the 2015 version of SEP-1 and 2013 version of CMS evidence criteria, both of which were updated in 2017.

Conclusion

No high- or moderate-level evidence shows that SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improve survival in adults with sepsis.

Primary Funding Source

National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42016052716).

Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock: an 8-year historical cohort study

Background

Echocardiographic myocardial dysfunction is reported commonly in sepsis and septic shock, but there are limited data on sepsis-related right ventricular dysfunction. This study sought to evaluate the association of right ventricular dysfunction with clinical outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Methods

Historical cohort study of adult patients admitted to all intensive care units at the Mayo Clinic from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2014 for severe sepsis and septic shock, who had an echocardiogram performed within 72 h of admission. Patients with prior heart failure, cor-pulmonale, pulmonary hypertension and valvular disease were excluded. Right ventricular dysfunction was defined by the American Society of Echocardiography criteria. Outcomes included 1-year survival, in-hospital mortality and length of stay.

Results

Right ventricular dysfunction was present in 214 (55%) of 388 patients who met the inclusion criteria—isolated right ventricular dysfunction was seen in 100 (47%) and combined right and left ventricular dysfunction in 114 (53%). The baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts except for the higher mechanical ventilation use in patients with isolated right ventricular dysfunction. Echocardiographic findings demonstrated lower right ventricular and tricuspid valve velocities in patients with right ventricular dysfunction and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and increased mitral E/e′ ratios in patients with combined right and left ventricular dysfunction. After adjustment for age, comorbidity, illness severity, septic shock and use of mechanical ventilation, isolated right ventricular dysfunction was independently associated with worse 1-year survival—hazard ratio 1.6 [95% confidence interval 1.2–2.1; p = 0.002) in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Conclusions

Isolated right ventricular dysfunction is seen commonly in sepsis and septic shock and is associated with worse long-term survival.

Early management of sepsis with emphasis on early goal directed therapy: AME evidence series 002

Severe sepsis and septic shock are major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients entering the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU). Despite substantial efforts to improve patient outcome, treatment of sepsis remains challenging to clinicians. In this context, early goal directed therapy (EGDT) represents an important concept emphasizing both early recognition of sepsis and prompt initiation of a structured treatment algorithm. As part of the AME evidence series on sepsis, we conducted a systematic review of all randomized controlled EGDT trials. Focus was laid on the setting (emergency department versus ICU) where EGDT was carried out. Early recognition of sepsis, through clinical or automated systems for early alert, together with well-timed initiation of the recommended therapy bundles may improve patients' outcome. However, the original "EGDT" protocol by Rivers and coworkers has been largely modified in subsequent trials. Currently, many investigators opt for an "expanded" EGDT (as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign). Evidence is also presented on the effectiveness of automated systems for early sepsis alert. Early recognition of sepsis and well-timed initiation of the SSC bundle may improve patient outcome.

Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: insights and comparisons to ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE

Prior to 2001 there was no standard for early management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. In the presence of standard or usual care, the prevailing mortality was over 40-50 %. In response, a systems-based approach, similar to that in acute myocardial infarction, stroke and trauma, called early goal-directed therapy was compared to standard care and this clinical trial resulted in a significant mortality reduction. Since the publication of that trial, similar outcome benefits have been reported in over 70 observational and randomized controlled studies comprising over 70,000 patients. As a result, early goal-directed therapy was largely incorporated into the first 6 hours of sepsis management (resuscitation bundle) adopted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and disseminated internationally as the standard of care for early sepsis management. Recently a trio of trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe), while reporting an all-time low sepsis mortality, question the continued need for all of the elements of early goal-directed therapy or the need for protocolized care for patients with severe and septic shock. A review of the early hemodynamic pathogenesis, historical development, and definition of early goal-directed therapy, comparing trial conduction methodology and the changing landscape of sepsis mortality, are essential for an appropriate interpretation of these trials and their conclusions.