Search

Purpose: Sepsis remains amongst the most common causes of death worldwide. It has been described as a disease of the elderly, but contemporary data on risk factors and mortality is lacking., Materials and Methods: Multi-center longitudinal cohort study using non-public, state of California data from January 1, 2008 to September 31, 2015. Patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes with age subgroups of 18-44, 45-64, 65-74, 75-84, and >85 years old. Descriptive statistics and a single direct logistic regression model were used to present data on incidence and mortality and to identify independent factors associated with mortality., Results: Of 30,282,159 total inpatient encounters, 20,358,569 met inclusion criteria and 1,566,306 met sepsis criteria. Conditions associated with mortality included metastatic cancer, age, liver disease, residing in a care facility, and a gastrointestinal source of infection as well as fungal infection. Mortality in the >85-year-old subgroup with septic shock was 45.7%, lower than previously reported., Conclusion: Age remains an important sepsis risk factor, but other conditions correlated more closely with sepsis-associated death. Patients over 85 years of age suffering from septic shock may have a better chance of survival than previously thought., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: Machine-learning algorithms allow improved prediction of sepsis syndromes in the emergency department (ED), using data from electronic medical records. Transfer learning, a new subfield of machine learning, allows generalizability of an algorithm across clinical sites. We aim to validate the Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert for the prediction of delayed septic shock in a cohort of patients treated in the ED and demonstrate the feasibility of transfer learning to improve external validity at a second site., Methods: This was an observational cohort study using data from greater than 180,000 patients from 2 academic medical centers between 2014 and 2019, using multiple definitions of sepsis. The Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert algorithm was trained with 40 input variables at the development site to predict delayed septic shock (occurring greater than 4 hours after ED triage) at various prediction windows. We then validated the algorithm at a second site, using transfer learning to demonstrate generalizability of the algorithm., Results: We identified 9,354 patients with severe sepsis, of whom 723 developed septic shock at least 4 hours after triage. The Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert algorithm demonstrated excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (>0.8) at 8 and 12 hours for the prediction of delayed septic shock. Transfer learning significantly improved the test characteristics of the Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert algorithm and yielded comparable performance at the validation site., Conclusion: The Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert algorithm accurately predicted the development of delayed septic shock. The use of transfer learning allowed significantly improved external validity and generalizability at a second site. Future prospective studies are indicated to evaluate the clinical utility of this model., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A nurse-triggered sepsis alert called "Code Sepsis" was implemented for early recognition and management of sepsis. The researchers analyzed its impact on antimicrobial use and identified factors associated with infection as source of Code Sepsis., Methods: The medical records of hospitalized patients with Code Sepsis between January 1 and June 30, 2018, were reviewed. Patients were classified as "Infection" when probable or definitive infection was identified or "No Infection" when a probable or definitive noninfectious source was identified. Patients were categorized as "Escalation" with addition or change to broader-spectrum antimicrobials or "No Escalation" with no change or change to narrower-spectrum antimicrobials. Escalation was classified as "Indicated" with appropriate escalation or "Not Indicated" with inappropriate escalation. Logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with Infection as Code Sepsis trigger., Results: Code Sepsis was activated in 529 patients, with Escalation in 246 (46.5%) and No Escalation in 283 (53.5%) patients. Escalation was Indicated in 157 (63.8%) and Not Indicated in 89 (36.2%) patients. Infection was identified in 356 (67.3%) and No Infection in 173 (32.7%) patients. History of HIV (odds ratio [OR] = 2.75, p = 0.03), temperature > 38.3°C or < 36°C (OR = 2.63, p < 0.01), and respiratory rate > 20/minute (OR = 1.56, p = 0.02) were associated with Infection, while surgery within 3 days (OR = 0.30, p < 0.01) was associated with No Infection., Conclusion: One hospital system's Code Sepsis inadvertently identified patients without infections and led to antimicrobial overuse. By refocusing Code Sepsis on early recognition of severe sepsis and septic shock only, the organization hopes to optimize resource utilization and improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: International clinical practice guidelines call for initial volume resuscitation of at least 30 mL/kg body weight for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock. Although not considered in the guidelines, preexisting cardiac dysfunction may be an important factor clinicians weigh in deciding the quantity of volume resuscitation for patients with septic shock., Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey of clinicians who routinely treat patients with sepsis to evaluate their beliefs, behaviors, knowledge, and perceived structural barriers regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis and concomitant heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) <40%. Initial volume resuscitation preferences were captured as ordinal values, and additional testing for volume resuscitation preferences was performed using McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests as indicated. Univariable logistic regression models were used to identify significant predictors of ≥30 mL/kg fluid administration., Results: A total of 317 clinicians at 9 US hospitals completed the survey (response rate 47.3%). Most respondents were specialists in either internal medicine or emergency medicine. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding sepsis resuscitation preferences for patients with concomitant HFrEF. The belief that patients with septic shock and HFrEF should be exempt from current sepsis bundle initiatives was shared by 39.4% of respondents. A minimum fluid challenge of ∼30 mL/kg or more was deemed appropriate in septic shock by only 56.4% of respondents for patients with concomitant HFrEF, compared to 89.1% of respondents for patients without HFrEF ( P < .01). Emergency medicine physicians were most likely to feel that <30 mL/kg was most appropriate in patients with septic shock and HFrEF., Conclusions: Clinical equipoise exists regarding initial volume resuscitation for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or shock and concomitant HFrEF. Future studies and clinical practice guidelines should explicitly address resuscitation in this subpopulation.

Study Objective: To determine the frequency and cause of inadequate initial antibiotic therapy with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department (ED), characterize its impact on patient outcomes, and identify patients who would benefit from an alternative initial empiric regimen., Methods: Retrospective cohort study conducted between 2012 and 2015 in which 342 patients with culture-positive severe sepsis or septic shock who received initial vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam were reviewed to determine appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy, risk factors for inappropriate use, and outcome data. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were determined to identify associations between inappropriate antibiotic use and outcomes and to identify risk factors that may predict which patients would benefit from an alternative initial regimen., Results: Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam were inappropriate for 24% of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, largely due to non-susceptible infections, particularly ESBL organisms and Clostridium difficile. Risk factors included multiple sources of infection (OR 4.383), admission from a skilled nursing facility (OR 3.763), a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 3.175), intra-abdominal infection (OR 2.890), and immunosuppression (OR 1.930). We did not find a mortality impact., Conclusion: Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam were an inappropriate antibiotic combination for approximately 24% of patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock in the ED. Patients with known COPD, residence at a skilled nursing facility, a history concerning for Clostridium difficile, and immunosuppression would benefit from an alternative regimen. Future prospective studies are needed to validate these findings., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines for the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock recommend crystalloids as the initial fluid solution of choice in the resuscitation of these patients. In recent years, there have been numerous studies published on the type of fluid used in the resuscitation of patients with sepsis. The primary goal of this article is to determine the preferred intravenous fluid for the resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock., Methods: A MEDLINE literature review was completed to identify studies that investigated the type of resuscitation fluid in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Articles included were those published in English between 2011 and 2016, enrolled human subjects, and limited to the following types: randomized controlled trial, prospective observational trial, retrospective cohort trial, and meta-analyses. All selected articles then underwent a structured review by the authors., Results: Nine thousand sixty-two articles were identified in the search. After use of predetermined criteria, 17 articles were selected for review. Eleven of these were original investigations and six were meta-analyses and systemic reviews., Conclusion: Crystalloids are the preferred solution for the resuscitation of emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Balanced crystalloids may improve patient-centered outcomes and should be considered as an alternative to normal saline, if available. There is strong evidence that suggests semi-synthetic colloids decrease survival and should be avoided. The role of albumin in the resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and sepsis is uncertain., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current international guidelines for the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock recommend that patients receive targeted care to various physiologic endpoints, thereby optimizing tissue perfusion and oxygenation. These recommendations are primarily derived from a protocol published >15 years ago, which was viewed by many as complex and was therefore not widely adopted. Instead, many emergency physicians focused on the administration of early antibiotics, source control, aggressive fluid resuscitation, vasoactive medications as needed to maintain mean arterial blood pressure, and careful monitoring of these patients. The primary goal of this literature search was to determine if there is a mortality benefit to the early goal-directed protocol recommended by current international sepsis guidelines compared to current usual care., Methods: A MEDLINE literature search was performed for studies published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. Studies were limited to the English language, human randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, prospective trials, and retrospective cohort trials that met specific keyword search criteria. Case reports, case series, and review articles were excluded. All selected articles then underwent a structured review by the authors., Results: Seven thousand four hundred twenty studies were initially screened; after the final application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 studies were formally analyzed. Each study then underwent a rigorous review and evaluation from which a formal recommendation was made., Conclusion: There is no difference in mortality between current usual care and the goal-directed approach recommended by current international guidelines for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)