Search

Background: Our objective was to compare in-hospital mortality among emergency department (ED) patients meeting trial-based criteria for septic shock based upon whether presenting with refractory hypotension (systolic blood pressure<90mmHg after 1L intravenous fluid bolus) versus hyperlactatemia (initial lactate≥4mmol/L).Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis by chart review of ED patients admitted to an intensive care unit with suspected infection during 1 August 2012-28 February 2015. We included all patients with body fluid cultures sampled either during their ED stay without antibiotic administration or within 24h of antibiotic administration in the ED. We excluded patients not meeting criteria for either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. Trained chart abstractors blinded to the study hypothesis double entered data from each patient's record including demographics, clinical data, treatments, and in-hospital mortality. We compared in-hospital mortality among patients with isolated refractory hypotension, isolated hyperlactatemia, or both. We also calculated odds ratios (ORs) via logistic regression for in-hospital mortality based on presence of refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia.Results: Of 202 patients included in the analysis, 38 (18.8%) died during hospitalization. Mortality was 10.9% among 101 patients with isolated refractory hypotension, 24.4% among 41 patients with isolated hyperlactatemia, and 28.3% among 60 patients with both (p=0.01). Logistic regression analyses yielded in-hospital mortality OR for refractory hypotension of 1.3 (95% CI 0.5-3.8) versus OR for hyperlactatemia of 2.9 (95% CI 1.2-7.4).Conclusions: Hyperlactatemia appears associated with higher in-hospital mortality compared to refractory hypotension among ED patients with septic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a prognostic score for patients with sepsis.Objective: Our aim was to compare the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of qSOFA vs. systemic inflammation response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting in-hospital mortality among emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort chart review study of ED patients admitted to an ICU with suspected infection from August 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015. We included all patients with body fluid cultures sampled either during their ED stay without antibiotic administration or within 24 h of antibiotics administered in the ED. Trained chart abstractors blinded to the study hypothesis double-entered data from each patient's electronic medical record including demographic characteristics, vital signs, laboratory study results, physical examination findings, and in-hospital mortality. We then calculated the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for qSOFA and SIRS for predicting in-hospital mortality.Results: Of 214 patients admitted to an ICU with presumed sepsis, 39 (18.2%) died during hospitalization. The AUROC value was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.74) for SIRS vs. 0.66 (95% CI 0.57-0.76) for qSOFA; 2+ qSOFA criteria predicted in-hospital mortality with 89.7% sensitivity, 27.4% specificity, 1.2 positive likelihood ratio, and 0.4 negative likelihood ratio.Conclusions: Among ED patients admitted to an ICU, the SIRS and qSOFA criteria had comparable prognostic value for predicting in-hospital mortality. These prognostic values are similar to those reported by the Sepsis-3 guidelines for ICU encounters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Emergency Departments (EDs) struggle with obtaining accurate medication information from patients. Objective: Our aim was to estimate the proportion of urban ED patients who are able to complete a self-administered medication form and record patient observations of the medication information process. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively sampled ED patients during various shifts between 8 am and 10 pm. We created a one-page medication questionnaire that included a list of 49 common medications, categorized by general indications. We asked patients to circle any medications they took and write the names of those not on the form in a dedicated area on the bottom of the page. After their visit, we asked patients to recall which providers had asked them about their medications. Results: Research staff approached 354 patients; median age was 45 years (interquartile range 29–53 years). Two hundred and forty-nine (70%) completed a form, 61 (17%) were too ill, 19 (5%) could not read it, and 25 (7%) refused to participate. Excluding refusals, 249 of 329 (76%; 95% confidence interval 70–80%) were able to complete the form. Of 209 patients recalling their visit, 180 (86%) indicated that multiple providers took a history, including 103 in which every provider did so, and 9 (4%) indicated that no provider took a medication history. Conclusions: The process of ED medication information transfer often involves redundant efforts by the health care team. More than 70% of patients presenting for Emergency care were able to complete a self-administered medication information form. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]