POINT: Should the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Be Retired? Yes

Effect of the 1-h bundle on mortality in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department: a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

The efficacy of the 1-h bundle for emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis, which includes lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluid for hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, remains controversial.

METHODS

We carried out a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in 23 EDs in France and Spain. Adult patients with Sepsis-3 criteria or a quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 or a lactate > 2 mmol/L were eligible. The intervention was the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality truncated at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included volume of fluid resuscitation at 24 h, acute heart failure at 24 h, SOFA score at 72 h, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, number of days on mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, vasopressor free days, unnecessary antibiotic administration, and mortality at 28 days. 1148 patients were planned to be analysed; the study period ended after 873 patients were included.

RESULTS

872 patients (mean age 66, 42% female) were analyzed: 387 (44.4%) in the intervention group and 485 (55.6%) in the control group. Median SOFA score was 3 [1-5]. Median time to antibiotic administration was 40 min in the intervention group vs 113 min in the control group (difference - 73 [95% confidence interval (CI) - 93 to - 53]). There was a significantly higher rate, volume, and shorter time to fluid resuscitation within 3 h in the intervention group. There were 47 (12.1%) in-hospital deaths in the intervention group compared to 61 (12.6%) in the control group (difference in percentage - 0.4 [95% CI - 5.1 to 4.2], adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.39]). There were no differences between groups for other secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected sepsis in the ED, the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle was not associated with significant difference in in-hospital mortality. However, this study may be underpowered to report a statistically significant difference between groups.

Early sepsis care with the National Early Warning Score 2-guided Sepsis Hour-1 Bundle in the emergency department: hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation pilot stepped wedge randomised controlled trial (NEWS-1 TRIPS) protocol

INTRODUCTION

Early sepsis treatment in the emergency department (ED) is crucial to improve patient survival. Despite international promulgation, the uptake of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Hour-1 Bundle (lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics, 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension/lactate ≥4 mmol/L and vasopressors for hypotension during/after fluid resuscitation within 1 hour of sepsis recognition) is low across healthcare settings. Delays in sepsis recognition and a lack of high-quality evidence hinder its implementation. We propose a novel sepsis care model (National Early Warning Score, NEWS-1 care), in which the SSC Hour-1 Bundle is triggered objectively by a high NEWS-2 (≥5). This study aims to determine the feasibility of a full-scale type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial on the NEWS-1 care in multiple EDs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a pilot type 1 hybrid trial and prospectively recruit 200 patients from 4 public EDs in Hong Kong cluster randomised in a stepped wedge design over 10 months. All study sites will start with an initial period of standard care and switch in random order at 2-month intervals to the NEWS-1 care unidirectionally. The implementation evaluation will employ mixed methods guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework, which includes qualitative and quantitative data from focus group interviews, staff survey and clinical record reviews. We will analyse the 14 feasibility outcomes as progression criteria to a full-scale trial, including trial acceptability to patients and staff, patient and staff recruitment rates, accuracy of sepsis screening, protocol adherence, accessibility to follow-up data, safety and preliminary clinical impacts of the NEWS1 care, using descriptive statistics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The institutional review boards of all study sites approved this study. This study will establish the feasibility of a full-scale hybrid trial. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and educational activities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05731349.

Risk of Misleading Conclusions in Observational Studies of Time-to-Antibiotics and Mortality in Suspected Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Influential studies conclude that each hour until antibiotics increases mortality in sepsis. However, these analyses often (1) adjusted for limited covariates, (2) included patients with long delays until antibiotics, (3) combined sepsis and septic shock, and (4) used linear models presuming each hour delay has equal impact. We evaluated the effect of these analytic choices on associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 104 248 adults admitted to 5 hospitals from 2015-2022 with suspected infection (blood culture collection and intravenous antibiotics ≤24 h of arrival), including 25 990 with suspected septic shock and 23 619 with sepsis without shock. We used multivariable regression to calculate associations between time-to-antibiotics and in-hospital mortality under successively broader confounding-adjustment, shorter maximum time-to-antibiotic intervals, stratification by illness severity, and removing assumptions of linear hourly associations.

RESULTS

Changing covariates, maximum time-to-antibiotics, and severity stratification altered the magnitude, direction, and significance of observed associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. In a fully adjusted model of patients treated ≤6 hours, each hour was associated with higher mortality for septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) but not sepsis without shock (aOR: 1.03; .98-1.09) or suspected infection alone (aOR: .99; .94-1.05). Modeling each hour separately confirmed that every hour of delay was associated with increased mortality for septic shock, but only delays >6 hours were associated with higher mortality for sepsis without shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality in sepsis are highly sensitive to analytic choices. Failure to adequately address these issues can generate misleading conclusions.

Effect of a quality improvement program on compliance to the sepsis bundle in non-ICU patients: a multicenter prospective before and after cohort study

Objective

Sepsis and septic shock are major challenges and economic burdens to healthcare, impacting millions of people globally and representing significant causes of mortality. Recently, a large number of quality improvement programs focused on sepsis resuscitation bundles have been instituted worldwide. These educational initiatives have been shown to be associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-faceted quality implementing program (QIP) on the compliance of a "simplified 1-h bundle" (Sepsis 6) and hospital mortality of severe sepsis and septic shock patients out of the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Emergency departments (EDs) and medical wards (MWs) of 12 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Lombardy region (Northern Italy) were involved in a multi-faceted QIP, which included educational and organizational interventions. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 criteria were enrolled in two different periods: from May 2011 to November 2011 (before-QIP cohort) and from August 2012 to June 2013 (after-QIP cohort).

Measurements and main results

The effect of QIP on bundle compliance and hospital mortality was evaluated in a before-after analysis. We enrolled 467 patients in the before-QIP group and 656 in the after-QIP group. At the time of enrollment, septic shock was diagnosed in 50% of patients, similarly between the two periods. In the after-QIP group, we observed increased compliance to the "simplified rapid (1 h) intervention bundle" (the Sepsis 6 bundle - S6) at three time-points evaluated (1 h, 13.7 to 18.7%, p = 0.018, 3 h, 37.1 to 48.0%, p = 0.013, overall study period, 46.2 to 57.9%, p < 0.001). We then analyzed compliance with S6 and hospital mortality in the before- and after-QIP periods, stratifying the two patients' cohorts by admission characteristics. Adherence to the S6 bundle was increased in patients with severe sepsis in the absence of shock, in patients with serum lactate <4.0 mmol/L, and in patients with hypotension at the time of enrollment, regardless of the type of admission (from EDs or MWs). Subsequently, in an observational analysis, we also investigated the relation between bundle compliance and hospital mortality by logistic regression. In the after-QIP cohort, we observed a lower in-hospital mortality than that observed in the before-QIP cohort. This finding was reported in subgroups where a higher adherence to the S6 bundle in the after-QIP period was found. After adjustment for confounders, the QIP appeared to be independently associated with a significant improvement in hospital mortality. Among the single S6 procedures applied within the first hour of sepsis diagnosis, compliance with blood culture and antibiotic therapy appeared significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

A multi-faceted QIP aimed at promoting an early simplified bundle of care for the management of septic patients out of the ICU was associated with improved compliance with sepsis bundles and lower in-hospital mortality.

Reduction of BSI associated mortality after a sepsis project implementation in the ER of a tertiary referral hospital

The emergency room (ER) is the first gateway for patients with sepsis to inpatient units, and identifying best practices and benchmarks to be applied in this setting might crucially result in better patient's outcomes. In this study, we want to evaluate the results in terms of decreased the in-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis of a Sepsis Project developed in the ER. All patients admitted to the ER of our Hospital from the 1st January, 2016 to the 31stJuly 2019 with suspect of sepsis (MEWS score ≥ of 3) and positive blood culture upon ER admission were included in this retrospective observational study. The study comprises of two periods: Period A: From the 1st Jan 2016 to the 31st Dec 2017, before the implementation of the Sepsis project. Period B: From the 1st Jan 2018 to the 31stJul 2019, after the implementation of the Sepsis project. To analyze the difference in mortality between the two periods, a univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used. The risk of in-hospital mortality was expressed as an odds ratio (OR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Overall, 722 patients admitted in ER had positive BC on admissions, 408 in period A and 314 in period B. In-hospital mortality was 18.9% in period A and 12.7% in period B (p = 0.03). At multivariable analysis, mortality was still reduced in period B compared to period A (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.98; p = 0.045). Having an infection due to GP bacteria or polymicrobial was associated with an increased risk of death, as it was having a neoplasm or diabetes. A marked reduction in in-hospital mortality of patients with documented BSI associated with signs or symptoms of sepsis after the implementation of a sepsis project based on the application of sepsis bundles in the ER.

Timing and Spectrum of Antibiotic Treatment for Suspected Sepsis and Septic Shock: Why so Controversial?

Sepsis guidelines and mandates encourage increasingly aggressive time-to-antibiotic targets for broad-spectrum antimicrobials for suspected sepsis and septic shock. This has caused considerable controversy due to weaknesses in the underlying evidence and fear that overly strict antibiotic deadlines may harm patients by perpetuating or escalating overtreatment. Indeed, a third or more of patients currently treated for sepsis and septic shock have noninfectious or nonbacterial conditions. These patients risk all the potential harms of antibiotics without their possible benefits. Updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines now emphasize the importance of tailoring antibiotics to each patient's likelihood of infection, risk for drug-resistant pathogens, and severity-of-illness.

Epidemiology, Management, and Outcomes of Sepsis in ICUs among Countries of Differing National Wealth across Asia

Rationale: Directly comparative data on sepsis epidemiology and sepsis bundle implementation in countries of differing national wealth remain sparse. Objectives: To evaluate across countries/regions of differing income status in Asia 1) the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of sepsis as a reason for ICU admission and 2) sepsis bundle (antibiotic administration, blood culture, and lactate measurement) compliance and its association with hospital mortality. Methods: A prospective point prevalence study was conducted among 386 adult ICUs from 22 Asian countries/regions. Adult ICU participants admitted for sepsis on four separate days (representing the seasons of 2019) were recruited. Measurements and Main Results: The overall prevalence of sepsis in ICUs was 22.4% (20.9%, 24.5%, and 21.3% in low-income countries/regions [LICs]/lower middle-income countries/regions [LMICs], upper middle-income countries/regions, and high-income countries/regions [HICs], respectively; P < 0.001). Patients were younger and had lower severity of illness in LICs/LMICs. Hospital mortality was 32.6% and marginally significantly higher in LICs/LMICs than HICs on multivariable generalized mixed model analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-3.37; P = 0.049). Sepsis bundle compliance was 21.5% at 1 hour (26.0%, 22.1%, and 16.2% in LICs/LMICs, upper middle-income countries/regions, and HICs, respectively; P < 0.001) and 36.6% at 3 hours (39.3%, 32.8%, and 38.5%, respectively; P = 0.001). Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours was the only element independently associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.08; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Sepsis is a common cause of admission to Asian ICUs. Mortality remains high and is higher in LICs/LMICs after controlling for confounders. Sepsis bundle compliance remains low. Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours from diagnosis is associated with increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.ctri.nic.in (CTRI/2019/01/016898).

Prompt Identification of Sepsis on Hospital Floors: Are Healthcare Professionals Ready for the Implementation of the Hour-1 Bundle?

Early intervention in sepsis management with recognized therapeutic targets may be effective in lowering sepsis-related morbidity and mortality, although this necessitates timely identification of sepsis by healthcare professionals. The present study aimed to assess knowledge levels, attitudes, and agreement among physicians regarding the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines (more specifically, the Hour-1 bundle). A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted among physicians working in different clinical settings in Karachi, Pakistan, using a self-administered questionnaire. The mean cumulative knowledge score of the respondents towards SSC was 6.8 ± 2.1 (out of 10), where a total of n = 127 respondents (51.62%) had a strong understanding of the SSC guidelines, compared to n = 78 (31.7%) and n = 41 (16.7%) respondents with fair and inadequate knowledge, respectively. The majorly known bundle elements by the respondents were to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics (89.8%, n = 221), the need for taking blood cultures before administering antibiotics (87.8%, n = 216), and measurement of blood lactate levels (75.6%, n = 186). Experienced physicians were more likely to use norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor (p < 0.001). Female respondents were more likely to consider the duration of antibiotic therapy to be determined according to the site of infection, the microbiological etiology, the patient’s response to treatment, and the likelihood of achieving adequate source control (p = 0.001). The current study concluded that respondents had an optimistic approach and frequently practice in accordance with the SSC guidelines, while some respondents were not up to date with the most recent guidelines. There is a need for further interventions and continuous medical education to encourage physicians towards appropriate use of the recommended guiding principles for improving treatment outcomes in sepsis patients.

Association of Registered Nurse Staffing With Mortality Risk of Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized With Sepsis

Question

Is registered nurse workload associated with mortality among Medicare beneficiaries who are admitted to an acute care hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 1958 acute care hospitals and 702 140 Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of sepsis, an increase in registered nurse hours per patient day was associated with a 3% decrease in 60-day mortality in these older adults, a finding that was statistically significant.

Meaning

The study results suggest that the hours of care provided by registered nurses is likely associated with the outcomes of patients with a diagnosis of sepsis.

Importance

Sepsis is a major physiologic response to infection that if not managed properly can lead to multiorgan failure and death. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires that hospitals collect data on core sepsis measure Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) in an effort to promote the early recognition and treatment of sepsis. Despite implementation of the SEP-1 measure, sepsis-related mortality continues to challenge acute care hospitals nationwide.

Objective

To determine if registered nurse workload was associated with mortality in Medicare beneficiaries admitted to an acute care hospital with sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 2018 data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, CMS Hospital Compare, and Medicare claims on Medicare beneficiaries age 65 to 99 years with a primary diagnosis of sepsis that was present on admission to 1 of 1958 nonfederal, general acute care hospitals that had data on CMS SEP-1 scores and registered nurse workload (indicated by registered nurse hours per patient day [HPPD]). Patients with sepsis were identified based on 29 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Data were analyzed throughout 2021.

Exposures

SEP-1 score and registered nurse staffing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The patient outcome of interest was mortality within 60 days of admission. Hospital characteristics included number of beds, ownership, teaching status, technology status, rurality, and region. Patient characteristics included age, sex, transfer status, intensive care unit admission, palliative care, do-not-resuscitate order, and a series of 29 comorbid diseases based on the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

Results

In total, 702 140 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 78.2 [8.7] years; 360 804 women [51%]) had a diagnosis of sepsis. The mean SEP-1 score was 56.1, and registered nurse HPPD was 6.2. In a multivariable regression model, each additional registered nurse HPPD was associated with a 3% decrease in the odds of 60-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.99) controlling for SEP-1 score and hospital and patient characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that hospitals that provide more registered nurse hours of care could likely improve SEP-1 bundle compliance and decrease the likelihood of mortality in Medicare beneficiaries with sepsis.

Sepsis Performance Improvement Programs: From Evidence Toward Clinical Implementation

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901.

The 28-Day Mortality Outcome of the Complete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign published the Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle in 2018. The first-hour management of patients with sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is important, as suggested in the Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate 28-day mortality and delayed septic shock with use of a complete and incomplete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle in the ED.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included adult patients with sepsis from March to July 2019. We followed the sepsis protocol used in the ED of a tertiary care hospital.

RESULTS

We enrolled 593 patients, with 55.9% in the complete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle group. The 28-day mortality was 3.9% overall and no significant difference between the complete and incomplete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle groups (3.6% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.707). Complete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle treatment was not associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted OR = 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-5.74, P = 0.176) or delayed septic shock (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.30-1.78, P = 0.499). Completion of each bundle did not affect outcomes of 28-day mortality and delayed septic shock.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle treatment in the ED was not significantly associated with 28-day mortality and delayed septic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Thai Clinical Trial Registry, TCTR 20200526013.

Implementation and evaluation of sepsis surveillance and decision support in medical ICU and emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To improve the timely diagnosis and treatment of sepsis many institutions implemented automated sepsis alerts. Poor specificity, time delays, and a lack of actionable information lead to limited adoption by bedside clinicians and no change in practice or clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare sepsis care compliance before and after a multi-year implementation of a sepsis surveillance coupled with decision support in a tertiary care center.

DESIGN

Single center before and after study.

SETTING

Large academic Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) and Emergency Department (ED).

POPULATION

Patients 18 years of age or older admitted to *** Hospital MICU and ED from 09/4/2011 to 05/01/2018 with severe sepsis or septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Electronic medical record-based sepsis surveillance system augmented by clinical decision support and completion feedback.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 1950 patients admitted to the MICU with the diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock during the study period. The baseline characteristics were similar before (N = 854) and after (N = 1096) implementation of sepsis surveillance. The performance of the alert was modest with a sensitivity of 79.9%, specificity of 76.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 27.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 97.2%. There were 3424 unique alerts and 1131 confirmed sepsis patients after the sniffer implementation. During the study period average care bundle compliance was higher; however after taking into account improvements in compliance leading up to the intervention, there was no association between intervention and improved care bundle compliance (Odds ratio: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.89; p-value 0.554). Similarly, the intervention was not associated with improvement in hospital mortality (Odds ratio: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.52; p-value: 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

A sepsis surveillance system incorporating decision support or completion feedback was not associated with improved sepsis care and patient outcomes.

When Minutes Matter: Rapid Infusion in Emergency Care

Purpose of Review

This review provides historical context and an update on recent advancements in volume resuscitation for circulatory shock. Emergency department providers who manage critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock will benefit from the insights of early pioneers and an overview of newer techniques which can be used to optimize resuscitation in the first minutes of care.

Recent Findings

Rapid infusion of fluids and blood products can be a life-saving intervention in the management of circulatory and hemorrhagic shock. Recent controversy over the role of fluid resuscitation in sepsis and trauma management has obscured the importance of early and rapid infusion of sufficient volume to restore circulation and improve organ perfusion. Evidence from high-quality studies demonstrates that rapid and early resuscitation improves patient outcomes.

Summary

Current practice standards, guidelines, and available literature support the rapid reversal of shock as a key priority in the treatment of hypotension from traumatic and non-traumatic conditions. An improved understanding of the physiologic rationale of rapid infusion and the timing, volume, and methods of fluid delivery will help clinicians improve care for critically ill patients presenting with shock.

Clinical Case

A 23-year-old male presents to the emergency department (ED) after striking a tree while riding an all-terrain vehicle. On arrival at the scene, first responders found an unconscious patient with an open skull fracture and a Glasgow coma scale score of 3. Bag-valve-mask (BVM) ventilation was initiated, and a semi-rigid cervical collar was placed prior to transport to your ED for stabilization while awaiting air transport to the nearest trauma center. You are the attending emergency medicine physician at a community ED staffed by two attending physicians, two physicians assistants, and six nurses covering 22 beds. On ED arrival, the patient has no spontaneous respiratory effort, and vital signs are as follows: pulse of 140 bpm, blood pressure of 65/30 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 85% while receiving BVM ventilation with 100% oxygen. He is bleeding profusely through a gauze dressing applied to the exposed dura. The prehospital team was unable to establish intravenous access. What are the management priorities for this patient in shock, and how should his hypotension best be addressed?

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Data Analysis will not Result in Knowledge Production about Sepsis

How to cite this article: Sampath S. Data Analysis will not Result in Knowledge Production about Sepsis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(7):750-751.

Time to administration of antibiotics and mortality in sepsis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between delay of antibiotic treatment and 28-day mortality in a study of septic patients identified by the Sepsis-3 criteria.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study of patients (≥ 18 years) with sepsis admitted to a Danish emergency department between October 2017 and March 2018. The interval between arrival to the ED and first delivery of antibiotics was used as time to antibiotic treatment (TTA). Logistic regression was used in the analysis of the association between TTA and mortality adjusted for potential confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 590 patients, median age 74.2 years, were included. Overall 28-day mortality was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-17.7). Median TTA was 4.7 hours (interquartile range 2.7-8.1). The mortality in patients with TTA ≤1 hour was 26.5% (95% CI, 12.8-44.4), and 15.3% (95% CI, 9.8-22.5), 10.5% (95% CI, 6.6-15.8), and 12.8 (95% CI, 7.3-20.1) in the timespans 1-3, 3-6, and 6-9 hours, respectively, and 18.8% (95% CI, 12.0-27.2) in patients with TTA >9 hours. With patients with lowest mortality (TTA timespan 3-6 hours) as reference, the adjusted odds ratio of mortality was 4.53 (95% CI, 1.67-3.37) in patients with TTA ≤1 hour, 1.67 (95% CI, 0.83-3.37) in TTA timespan 1-3 hours, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.56-2.49) in timespan 6-9 hours, and 1.91 (95% CI, 0.96-3.85) in patient with TTA >9 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjusted odds of 28-day mortality were lowest in emergency department (ED) patients with sepsis who received antibiotics between 1 and 9 hours and highest in patients treated within 1 and >9 hours after admission to the ED.

Impact of Sepsis Mandates on Sepsis Care: Unintended Consequences

The creation of dedicated sepsis guidelines and their broad dissemination over the past 2 decades have contributed to significant improvements in sepsis care. These successes have spurred the creation of bundled care mandates by major healthcare payers, such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, despite the likely benefits of guideline-directed sepsis bundles, mandated treatments in sepsis may lead to unintended consequences as the standard of care in sepsis improves. In particular, the heterogeneous spectrum of presentation and disease severity in sepsis, as well as the complexity surrounding the benefits of specific interventions in sepsis, argues for an individualized and titrated approach to interventions: an approach generally not afforded by care mandates. In this review, we review the risks and benefits of mandated care for sepsis, with particular emphasis on the potential adverse consequences of common bundle components such as early empiric antibiotics, weight-based fluid administration, and serum lactate monitoring. Unlike guideline-directed care, mandated care in sepsis precludes providers from tailoring treatments to heterogeneous clinical scenarios and may lead to unintended harms for individual patients.

Fluid Therapy in Dogs and Cats With Sepsis

Sepsis is currently defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis may occur secondary to infection anywhere in the body, and its pathogenesis is complex and not yet fully understood. Variations in the host immune response result in diverse clinical manifestations, which complicates clinical recognition and fluid therapy both in humans and veterinary species. Septic shock is a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Although septic shock is a form of distributive shock, septic patients frequently present with hypovolemic and cardiogenic shock as well, further complicating fluid therapy decisions. The goals of this review are to discuss the clinical recognition of sepsis in dogs and cats, the basic mechanisms of its pathogenesis as it affects hemodynamic function, and considerations for fluid therapy. Important pathophysiologic changes, such as cellular interaction, microvascular alterations, damage to the endothelial glycocalyx, hypoalbuminemia, and immune paralysis will be also reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages of treatment with crystalloids, natural and synthetic colloids, and blood products will be discussed. Current recommendations for evaluating fluid responsiveness and the timing of vasopressor therapy will also be considered. Where available, the veterinary literature will be used to guide recommendations.

Impact of 1-Hour Bundle Achievement in Septic Shock

This study aimed to address the impact of 1-hr bundle achievement on outcomes in septic shock patients. Secondary analysis of multicenter prospectively collected data on septic shock patients who had undergone protocolized resuscitation bundle therapy at emergency departments was conducted. In-hospital mortality according to 1-h bundle achievement was compared using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Patients were also divided into 3 groups according to the time of bundle achievement and outcomes were compared to examine the difference in outcome for each group over time: group 1 (≤1 h reference), group 2 (1–3 h) and group 3 (3–6 h). In total, 1612 patients with septic shock were included. The 1-h bundle was achieved in 461 (28.6%) patients. The group that achieved the 1-h bundle did not show a significant difference in in-hospital mortality compared to the group that did not achieve the 1-h bundle on multivariable logistic regression analysis (<1 vs. >1 h) (odds ratio = 0.74, p = 0.091). However, 3- and 6- h bundle achievements showed significantly lower odds ratios of in-hospital mortality compared to the group that did not achieve the bundle (<3 vs. >3 h, <6 vs. >6 h, odds ratio = 0.604 and 0.458, respectively). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality over time for group 2 and 3 compared to that of group 1. One-hour bundle achievement was not associated with improved outcomes in septic shock patients. These data suggest that further investigation into the clinical implications of 1-h bundle achievement in patients with septic shock is warranted.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Surgical Infection Society Research Priorities: A Narrative Review of Fourteen Years of Progress

Background: In 2006, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) utilized a modified Delphi approach to define 15 specific priority research questions that remained unanswered in the field of surgical infections. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the scientific progress achieved during the ensuing period in answering each of the 15 research questions and to determine if additional research in these fields is warranted. Methods: For each of the questions, a literature search using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was performed by the Scientific Studies Committee of the SIS to identify studies that attempted to address each of the defined questions. This literature was analyzed and summarized. The data on each question were evaluated by a surgical infections expert to determine if the question was answered definitively or remains unanswered. Results: All 15 priority research questions were studied in the last 14 years; six questions (40%) were definitively answered and 9 questions (60%) remain unanswered in whole or in part, mainly because of the low quality of the studies available on this topic. Several of the 9 unanswered questions were deemed to remain research priorities in 2020 and warrant further investigation. These included, for example, the role of empiric antimicrobial agents in nosocomial infections, the use of inotropes/vasopressors versus volume loading to raise the mean arterial pressure, and the role of increased antimicrobial dosing and frequency in the obese patient. Conclusions: Several surgical infection-related research questions prioritized in 2006 remain unanswered. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive answer to many of these priority knowledge gaps. An updated research agenda by the SIS is warranted at this time to define research priorities for the future.

A Multimodal Sepsis Quality-Improvement Initiative Including 24/7 Screening and a Dedicated Sepsis Response Team-Reduced Readmissions and Mortality

Objectives

To evaluate if a hospitalwide sepsis performance improvement initiative improves compliance with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-mandated sepsis bundle interventions and patient outcomes.

Study Design

Retrospective analysis comparing 6 months before and 14 months after intervention.

Setting

Tertiary teaching hospital in Washington, DC.

Subjects

Patients admitted with a diagnosis of sepsis to a tertiary hospital.

Interventions

Implementation of a multimodal quality-improvement initiative.

Measurements and Main Results

A total of 4,102 patients were diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock during the study period, 861 patients (21%) were diagnosed during a 6-month preintervention period, and 3,241 (79%) were diagnosed in a 13-month postintervention period. Adjusted for patient case-mix, the prevalence of simple sepsis increased by 12%, but it decreased for severe sepsis and septic shock by 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively. Compliance with all sepsis bundle interventions increased by 31.1 percentage points (p < 0.01). All-cause hospital readmission and readmission due to infection were both reduced by 1.6% and 1.7 percentage points (p < 0.05). Death from any sepsis diagnosis was reduced 4.5% (p < 0.01). Death from severe sepsis and septic shock both was reduced by 5% (p < 0.01) and 6.5% (p < 0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

After the implementation of multimodal sepsis performance initiatives, we observed a higher prevalence of sepsis secondary to screening but a lower prevalence of severe sepsis and septic shock, an improvement in compliance with the sepsis bundle interventions bundle, as well as reduction in hospital readmission and all- cause mortality rate.

Timeline of sepsis bundle component completion and its association with septic shock outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of the timeline of sepsis bundle completion with clinical outcomes in septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied adult (≥18 years) patients with septic shock from January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2018, who were admitted to the intensive care unit in Mayo Clinic, Rochester. We divided patients into three groups based on the SSC compliant 1) <1h, 2) 1.1 to 3 h, 3) >3 h after the time of septic shock diagnosis.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1052 septic shock patients, among 8% were in group 1, 26% in group 2, and the remaining in group 3. Those who completed all bundle components within 3 h had the lowest 28-day mortality (17.5% vs. 31.4%, p < .001) and higher survival at 90 days (HR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.80; p < .001). Sepsis bundle completion in <1 h had no significant advantage in 28-day mortality (21.5% vs.15.9%, p = .4) or 90-day survival compared with group 2 (HR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.77-1.53; p = .6).

CONCLUSIONS

We showed an association between the completion of SSC bundle components within three hours with lower mortality or earlier shock reversal. This relationship was not evident when compared to bundle completion in 1 h vs. within 3 h.

Blood Culture Results and Overtreatment Associated With the Use of a 1-Hour Sepsis Bundle

BACKGROUND

Some experts recommend using a 1-h sepsis bundle, but clinical data supporting this strategy are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the rate of, and clinical predictors for, bacteremia for patients undergoing a 1-h sepsis bundle, and to determine the percentage of "code sepsis" patients who are ultimately diagnosed with sepsis or a bacterial infection.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review evaluated code sepsis patients from three emergency departments (EDs) that utilize a 1-h sepsis bundle. The primary outcome was the rate of true-positive blood cultures. Secondarily, we analyzed various clinical factors using logistic regression analysis to determine which are associated with bacteremia.

RESULTS

Of the 544 code sepsis patients analyzed, 33.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.9-38.0%) were ultimately diagnosed with sepsis, and 54.6% (95% CI 50.3-58.8%) were diagnosed with a bacterial infection. Exactly 7.0% (95% CI 5.0-9.5%) of the blood cultures performed were true positives. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, temperature > 38°C (100.4°F) or < 36°C (96.8°F), lactate > 4 mmol/L, and indwelling line/device were found to be positively associated with true-positive blood cultures.

CONCLUSION

In a group of code sepsis patients from facilities that use a 1-h sepsis bundle, the majority were ultimately not diagnosed with sepsis, and nearly half did not have a bacterial infection. A small minority of patients had bacteremia. Restricting blood culture ordering in patients with possible sepsis to only those who have increased risk for bacteremia could lead to a more judicious use of blood cultures.

[Surviving Sepsis Campaign update 2018: the 1 h bundle : Background to the new recommendations]

A new update of the sepsis bundle was published by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) in April 2018. The original 3 h and 6 h bundles have been restructured and combined into a 1‑h bundle. The recommendations comprehensively focus on diagnostic and therapeutic measures which should be carried out within 1 h after recognition of sepsis. This article presents the background and discusses criticisms of the new recommendations.

Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied.

Results

Four thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6–36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4–41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5–27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0–37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5–35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7–33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1–34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8–3.3%.

Conclusion

Trends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.

Use of Physician-Estimated and Patient Self-Reported Weights to Guide Initial Fluid Resuscitation in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of patient weight is required to guide initial intravenous fluid therapy for patients with sepsis-associated hypotension or elevated lactate. Previous studies have shown patients are better estimators of their weight than medical providers are; critically ill patients, however, may be unable to provide this information.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares the accuracy of physician-estimated and patient self-reported weights to subsequent inpatient bed/stretcher scale weights for guiding initial protocol-based intravenous fluid therapy in the treatment of emergency department patients with suspected sepsis.

METHODS

Adult patients presenting with a suspected diagnosis of severe sepsis to a large, urban, academic emergency department had either physician-estimated or patient self-reported weights recorded on presentation. All patients had subsequent inpatient bed/stretcher scale weights recorded on the first day of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Physician-estimated and patient self-reported weights linearly correlated (P < .001) with inpatient bed/stretcher scale weights. Median accuracy error for physicians (5.4% [2.0-10.1]) and patients (3.9% [1.6-6.4]) was not significantly different (P = .28). Physician-estimated and patient self-reported weights accuracy was determined at multiple levels: within 5% (46%, 57%, respectively), 10% (75%, 90%), 15% (90%, 95%), and 20% (100%, 95%) error tolerances, as well accurate estimates within 5 kg (69.2%, 70.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both physician-estimated and patient self-reported weights are reliable when calculating initial protocol-based intravenous fluid resuscitation for emergency department patients with sepsis.

Antimicrobials administration time in patients with suspected sepsis: is faster better? An analysis by propensity score

Background

Early use of antimicrobials is a critical intervention in the treatment of patients with sepsis. The exact time of initiation is controversial and its early administration may be a difficult task in crowded emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to estimate, using a matched propensity score, the effect on hospital mortality of administration of antimicrobials within 1 or 3 hours, in patients admitted to the ED with sepsis.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort. Patients included in the study were older than 18 years, hospitalized between 2014 and 2016 with suspected sepsis, and admitted to ED of three tertiary care university hospitals in Medellín, Colombia. A propensity score analysis for administration of antimicrobials, both within 1 and 3 h of admission by the ED, was fitted with 28 variables related with clinical attention and physiological changes. As a sensitivity analysis, a logistic regression model was fitted for antimicrobial use adjusted both by propensity score and confounding variables.

Results

The study cohort was composed of 2454 patients with a median age of 62 years (IQR = 46-74). Among them, 32% (n = 781) received antibiotics within 3 h and 14% (n = 340) within the first hour. The main diagnoses were urinary tract infection (28%, n = 682) and pneumonia (27%, n = 671). Blood cultures were obtained in 87% (n = 2140) and yielded positive in 29% (n = 629), mainly with Escherichia coli (37%, n = 230), Staphylococcus aureus (21%, n = 132), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.2%, n = 64). The hospital mortality rate was 11.5% (n = 283). There were no significant differences in mortality, after adjustment, using antimicrobials either in the first hour (OR 1.03; 95% CI = 0.63; 1.70) or 3 h (OR 0.85; 95% CI = 0.61; 1.20). There were no changes with different models for sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Despite the obvious constraints given for sample size and residual confounding, our results suggest that we need a more comprehensive approach to sepsis and its treatment, considering early detection, multiple interventions, and goals beyond the simple time-to-antimicrobials.

Timeliness of antibiotics for patients with sepsis and septic shock

For many years, sepsis guidelines have focused on early administration of antibiotics. While this practice may benefit some patients, for others it might have detrimental consequences. The increasingly shortened timeframes in which administration of antibiotics is recommended, have forced physicians to sacrifice diagnostic accuracy for speed, encouraging the overuse of antibiotics. The evidence supporting this practice is based on retrospective data, with all the limitations attached, while the only randomized trial on this subject does not show a mortality benefit from early administration of antibiotics in a population of patients with sepsis as often seen in the emergency department (ED). Physicians are challenged to treat patients suspected of having sepsis within a short period of time, while the real challenge should be to identify patients who would not be harmed by withholding treatment with antibiotics until the diagnosis of infection with a bacterial origin is confirmed and the appropriateness of a course of antibiotics can be evaluated more adequately. Therefore, in the general population of patients with sepsis, taking the time to gather additional data to confirm the diagnosis should be encouraged without a specific timeframe, although physicians should be encouraged to perform an adequate work-up as soon as possible. Patients with suspected sepsis and signs of shock should immediately be treated with antibiotics, as there is no margin for error.

Driving blind: instituting SEP-1 without high quality outcomes data

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted an all-or-none sepsis performance measure bundle (SEP-1) to promote high-quality, cost-effective care. Systematic reviews demonstrated only low-quality evidence supporting most of SEP-1's interventions. CMS has removed some but not all of these unproven components. The current SEP-1 version requires patients with suspected sepsis have a lactate level, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and, if hypotensive, a fixed 30 mL/kg fluid infusion within 3 hours, and a repeat lactate if initially elevated within 6 hours. Experts have continued to raise concerns that SEP-1 remains overly prescriptive, lacks a sound scientific basis and presents risks (overuse of antibiotics and inappropriate fluids not titrated to need). To incentivize compliance with SEP-1, CMS now publicly publishes how often hospitals complete all interventions in individual patients. However, compliance measured across hospitals (5 studies, 48-2,851 hospitals) or patients (three studies, 110-851 patients) has been low (approximately 50%) which is not surprising given SEP-1's lack of scientific basis. The largest observational study (1,738 patients) reporting survival rates employing SEP-1 found they were not significantly improved with the measure (P=0.53) as did the next largest study (851 patients, adjusted survival odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.18). Two smaller observational studies (158 and 450 patients) reported SEP-1 improved unadjusted survival (P≤0.05) but were confounded either by baseline imbalances or by simultaneous introduction of a code sepsis protocol to improve compliance. Regardless, retrospective studies have well known biases related to non-randomized designs, uncontrolled data collection and failure to adjust for unrecognized influential variables. Such low-quality science should not be the basis for a national mandate compelling care for a rapidly lethal disease with a high mortality rate. Instead, SEP-1 should be based on high quality reproducible evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating its benefit and thereby safety. Otherwise we risk not only doing harm but standardizing it.

Early diagnosis of sepsis in emergency departments, time to treatment, and association with mortality: An observational study

Background

Early recognition of sepsis is critical for timely initiation of treatment. The first objective of this study was to assess the timeliness of diagnostic procedures for recognizing sepsis in emergency departments. We define diagnostic procedures as tests used to help diagnose the condition of patients. The second objective was to estimate associations between diagnostic procedures and time to antibiotic treatment, and to estimate associations between time to antibiotic treatment and mortality.

Methods

This observational study from 24 emergency departments in Norway included 1559 patients with infection and at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. We estimated associations using linear and logistic regression analyses.

Results

Of the study patients, 72.9% (CI 70.7–75.1) had documented triage within 15 minutes of presentation to the emergency departments, 44.9% (42.4–47.4) were examined by a physician in accordance with the triage priority, 44.4% (41.4–46.9) were adequately observed through continual monitoring of signs while in the emergency department, and 25.4% (23.2–27.7) received antibiotics within 1 hour. Delay or non-completion of these key diagnostic procedures predicted a delay of more than 2.5 hours to antibiotic treatment. Patients who received antibiotics within 1 hour had an observed 30-day all-cause mortality of 13.6% (10.1–17.1), in the timespan 2 to 3 hours after admission 5.9% (2.8–9.1), and 4 hours or later after admission 10.5% (5.7–15.3).

Conclusions

Key procedures for recognizing sepsis were delayed or not completed in a substantial proportion of patients admitted to the emergency department with sepsis. Delay or non-completion of key diagnostic procedures was associated with prolonged time to treatment with antibiotics. This suggests a need for systematic improvement in the initial management of patients admitted to emergency departments with sepsis.

Sepsis 2019: What Surgeons Need to Know

The definition of sepsis continues to be as dynamic as the management strategies used to treat this. Sepsis-3 has replaced the earlier systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based diagnoses with the rapid Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score assisting in predicting overall prognosis with regards to mortality. Surgeons have an important role in ensuring adequate source control while recognizing the threat of carbapenem-resistance in gram-negative organisms. Rapid diagnostic tests are being used increasingly for the early identification of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs), with a key emphasis on the multidisciplinary alert of results. Novel, higher generation antibiotic agents have been developed for resistance in ESKCAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) organisms while surgeons have an important role in the prevention of spread. The Study to Optimize Peritoneal Infection Therapy (STOP-IT) trial has challenged the previous paradigm of length of antibiotic treatment whereas biomarkers such as procalcitonin are playing a prominent role in individualizing therapy. Several novel therapies for refractory septic shock, while still investigational, are gaining prominence rapidly (such as vitamin C) whereas others await further clinical trials. Management strategies presented as care bundles continue to be updated by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, yet still remain controversial in its global adoption. We have broadened our temporal and epidemiologic perspective of sepsis by understanding it both as an acute, time-sensitive, life-threatening illness to a chronic condition that increases the risk of mortality up to five years post-discharge. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bedside scoring systems can assist the clinician in predicting post-operative sepsis. The public health role of the surgeon is key. This includes collaboration and multi-disciplinary antibiotic stewardship at a hospital level. It also requires controlling pharmaceutical sales and the unregulated dispensing of antibiotic agents globally through policy initiatives to control emerging resistance through prevention.

Sepsis Care Pathway 2019

Background: Sepsis, a medical emergency and life-threatening disorder, results from abnormal host response to infection that leads to acute organ dysfunction¹. Sepsis is a major killer across all ages and countries and remains the most common cause of admission and death in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)². The true incidence remains elusive and estimates of the global burden of sepsis remain a wild guess. One study suggested over 19 million cases and 5 million sepsis-related deaths annually³. Addressing the challenge, the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organisation (WHO) passed a resolution on better prevention, diagnosis, and management of sepsis⁴. Current state of sepsis guidelines: Despite thousands of articles and hundreds of trials, sepsis remains a major killer. The cornerstones of sepsis care remain early recognition, adoption of a systematic evidence-based bundle of care, and timely escalation to higher level of care. The bundle approach has been advocated since 2004 but underwent major modifications in subsequent years with more emphasis on the time-critical nature of sepsis and need to restore physiological variables within one hour of recognition. A shift from a three and six-hour bundle to one-hour bundle has been recommended⁵. This single hour approach has been faced with an outcry and been challenged^6–8. One size never fits all: Over several decades, the individual components of the sepsis bundle have not changed. Encountering a patient with suspected sepsis, one should measure lactate, obtain blood cultures, swiftly administer broad spectrum antimicrobials and fluids, and infuse vasopressors. A critical question arises: should we do this for all patients? Sepsis is not septic shock and guidelines did not make distinctive recommendations for each. Septic patients will present differently with some having more subtle signs and symptoms. Phenotypically, we do not know which patient with infection will develop a dysregulated host response and will succumb to sepsis and/or shock^6–8. The existing bundle lacks high quality evidence to support its recommendations and a blanket implementation for all patients with ‘suspected’ sepsis could be harmful⁷. Indeed, a significant reduction of sepsis and septic shock in Australia and New Zealand was observed in a bundle-free region⁸. Emergency Department (ED) challenges: Upon arrival in the ED, patients will be triaged. This is ‘time zero’⁵. Those with hypotension and hypoperfusion will be easily recognised and at most need to receive emergent care. Sepsis, per se, may not manifest clear cut signs and expertise to identify it is required. Those with non-specific symptoms may trigger an early warning scoring system and receive unnecessary antimicrobials and a large volume of intravenous (IV) fluids. Both therapies are not without significant side effects. Putting pressure on ED physicians to implement the 60-minute bundle without individualisation of care puts our patients at risk^6–8. Diagnostic challenges: Given the heterogenous nature and diverse pathobiological pathways, sepsis diagnosis can be challenging and both over and under-treatment can result. Established biomarkers such as procalcitonin and C-reactive protein lack specificity to rule out infection as the cause of inflammation. Currently, no laboratory test or biomarker helps predict which patients with infection or inflammation will develop organ dysfunction. A dire need for a specific sepsis biomarker exists¹⁰.

Modern molecular-based technologies are evolving and utilise polymerase chain reaction (PCR), nanotechnology, and microfluidics for point-of-care testing. Some devices identify causative microorganisms and their sensitivity in less than an hour¹⁰. The bundle components: Catecholamines along with IV fluids are indicated to restore perfusion. However, inadvertent side effects may arise, especially at higher doses. Anti-adrenergic ß-blockers improve cardiac performance, enhance receptor responsiveness, and possess anti-inflammatory action. All are desirable in patients with septic shock¹¹.

One randomised trial showed beneficial and protective effects of ß-blockers in septic shock. Rapidly acting titratable agents should be used in conjunction with appropriate hemodynamic monitoring and after adequate volume resuscitation. There is no consensus on target heart rate but an arbitrary cut off of 80–95 beats per minute is reasonable¹¹.

Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management. There is also compelling evidence that too much fluid is bad. Starch-based colloids should not be used in septic shock. Albumin is an alternative when large volumes are required but is not appropriate in traumatic brain injury. Balanced, less chloride and less acidic crystalloids are safer for the kidneys and are preferred over normal saline. Doses of IV fluids should be tailored to the patient's condition and a 30 ml/kg recommendation should be reviewed.¹²

Effective sepsis management requires adequate dosing of antimicrobials. Significant alteration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics is characteristic of septic shock¹³. Accurate and effective dosing is challenging particularly in patients with multiple comorbidities and those receiving extracorporeal organ support. Underdosing results in treatment failure, whilst overdosing leads to toxicity and the risk of developing multi-drug resistant organisms¹³. An individualised approach supported by therapeutic drug monitoring is suggested to ensure clinical efficacy¹³. Sepsis research: The search for a cure for sepsis is ongoing. A large prospective, randomised two-arm, parallel group study aims to recruit over 200 patients with septic shock across critical care units in Qatar. Evaluation of Hydrocortisone, Vitamin C, and Thiamine (HYVITS) examines the safety and efficacy of this triple therapy¹⁴. Sepsis in the young patient: Children are particularly vulnerable to sepsis. 1 in 6 children admitted with septic shock to ICU will die. As the majority of paediatric sepsis cases are community acquired, there is a strong need to raise awareness both for families and primary healthcare providers. Akin to adults, a bundle-approach to paediatric sepsis is strongly encouraged. National programs for paediatric sepsis have been established¹⁵. The Qatar paediatric multidisciplinary sepsis program was established under the umbrella of the adult programme in 2017. A structured and standardised approach to sepsis across all neonate and paediatric facilities has been developed and implemented. Improvement in timely sepsis recognition and administration of antimicrobials within the golden hour has been observed. The program aims to achieve a 95% compliance to the paediatric sepsis bundle by the end of 2019. A screening tool and order set have been put in place and are presented in this special issue of Qatar Medical Journal^16,17. Obstetric sepsis: Pregnancy and childbirth are risk factors for sepsis. Multi-organ failure and death can result from puerperal sepsis¹⁸. Sepsis is the direct and leading cause of maternal mortality in the UK¹⁹. Attention to maternal sepsis with a tailored approach is encouraged. The Qatar National Sepsis Program developed a sepsis care pathway for pregnant women and during their early post-partum period. Challenges in low socioeconomic societies: A broader, national –or better yet– a global approach to further sepsis management and outcome should be considered. There are a number of significant challenges to address. One such challenge is the inconsistency of the operational definition and diagnostic approaches for sepsis including coding and documentation^1,3.

Significant deficiencies in healthcare systems have been highlighted by sepsis. This is most obvious in medium- and low-income countries. A major limitation to effective sepsis management is inadequate medical staffing and poor knowledge and awareness of sepsis. Both have a negative impact on sepsis outcome³.

Poor medical facilities in many countries pose significant challenges to sepsis care. Lack of critical care capacity – a global phenomenon – has been linked to poor outcome of sepsis cases and septic shock. This could be attributed to provision of suboptimal critical care, monitoring and critical interventions outside of the ICU. ICU availability is subject to inconsistency and inequity.^2,3

Lack of adequate surgical capacity to accomplish timely source control adversely affects sepsis management. This, unfortunately, in medium- and low-income countries, is accompanied by inadequate medical supplies, diagnostic capacity, and manpower which increases sepsis mortality and morbidity³. Global concerns: Antimicrobials are critical for sepsis care. A global concern is the development of multi-drug resistant organisms and the lack of novel antimicrobials and this adds pressure on those caring for septic patients. Effective antimicrobials should be utilised to eradicate infections. Misuse, inadequacy, inferior agents, and lack of timely access to effective and affordable agents significantly hinders patient's recovery from sepsis^2,3.

Optimum sepsis outcome mandates attention to acute sepsis complications (e.g. acute renal or respiratory failure) as well as addressing post-discharge complications and disability. These challenging issues remain poorly studied or addressed³. Conclusion: Sepsis and septic shock are major global health concerns. Progress has been achieved in understanding this life-threatening syndrome at a biological, metabolic, and cellular level. Efforts should be coordinated to improve sepsis care. Better and more accurate diagnostics are needed and governments are encouraged to invest in sepsis research and care. More integrated, inclusive, and focused research is desperately needed. Public education and increased awareness among primary healthcare providers are also critical to improve sepsis outcome.

Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Hospitalized Patients

IMPORTANCE

Treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) with antibiotics is a common factor in inappropriate antibiotic use, but risk factors and outcomes associated with treatment of ASB in hospitalized patients are not well defined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors associated with treatment of ASB among hospitalized patients and the possible association between treatment and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2016, through February 1, 2018, at 46 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. A total of 2733 hospitalized medical patients with ASB, defined as a positive urine culture without any documented signs or symptoms attributable to urinary tract infection, were included in the analysis.

EXPOSURES

One or more antibiotic dose for treatment of ASB.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimators of antibiotic treatment of ASB. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, 30-day emergency department visit, discharge to post-acute care settings, Clostridioides difficile infection (formerly known as Clostridium difficile) at 30 days, and duration of hospitalization after urine testing.

RESULTS

Of 2733 patients with ASB, 2138 were women (78.2%); median age was 77 years (interquartile range [IQR], 66-86 years). A total of 2259 patients (82.7%) were treated with antibiotics for a median of 7 days (IQR, 4-9 days). Factors associated with ASB treatment included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.10 per 10-year increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18), dementia (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13), acutely altered mental status (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.23-3.04), urinary incontinence (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.36-2.41), leukocytosis (white blood cell count >10 000/μL) (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.21-2.00), positive urinalysis (presence of leukocyte esterase or nitrite, or >5 white blood cells per high-power field) (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.05-3.93), and urine culture with a bacterial colony count greater than 100 000 colony-forming units per high-power field (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.83-2.91). Treatment of ASB was associated with longer duration of hospitalization after urine testing (4 vs 3 days; relative risk, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.47). No other differences in secondary outcomes were identified after propensity weighting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hospitalized patients with ASB commonly receive inappropriate antibiotic therapy. Antibiotic treatment did not appear to be associated with improved outcomes; rather, treatment may be associated with longer duration of hospitalization after urine testing. To possibly reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, stewardship efforts should focus on improving urine testing practices and management strategies for elderly patients with altered mental status.

Antibiotic- and Fluid-Focused Bundles Potentially Improve Sepsis Management, but High-Quality Evidence Is Lacking for the Specificity Required in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Sepsis Bundle (SEP-1)

OBJECTIVE

To address three controversial components in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's sepsis bundle for performance measure (SEP-1): antibiotics within 3 hours, a 30 mL/kg fluid infusion for all hypotensive patients, and repeat lactate measurements within 6 hours if initially elevated. We hypothesized that antibiotic- and fluid-focused bundles like SEP-1 would probably show benefit, but evidence supporting specific antibiotic timing, fluid dosing, or serial lactate requirements would not be concordant. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of studies of sepsis bundles like SEP-1.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov through March 15, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies comparing survival in septic adults receiving versus not receiving antibiotic- and fluid-focused bundles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators (D.J.P., P.Q.E.).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventeen observational studies (11,303 controls and 4,977 bundle subjects) met inclusion criteria. Bundles were associated with increased odds ratios of survival (odds ratio [95% CI]) in 15 studies with substantial heterogeneity (I = 61%; p < 0.01). Survival benefits were consistent in the five largest (1,697-12,486 patients per study) (1.20 [1.11-1.30]; I = 0%) and six medium-sized studies (167-1,029) (2.03 [1.52-2.71]; I = 8%) but not the six smallest (64-137) (1.25 [0.42-3.66]; I = 57%). Bundles were associated with similarly increased survival benefits whether requiring antibiotics within 1 hour (n = 7 studies) versus 3 hours (n = 8) versus no specified time (n = 2); or 30 mL/kg fluid (n = 7) versus another volume (≥ 2 L, n = 1; ≥ 20 mL/kg, n = 2; 1.5-2 L or 500 mL, n = 1 each; none specified, n = 4) (p = 0.19 for each comparison). In the only study employing serial lactate measurements, survival was not increased versus others. No study had a low risk of bias or assessed potential adverse bundle effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Available studies support the notion that antibiotic- and fluid-focused sepsis bundles like SEP-1 improve survival but do not demonstrate the superiority of any specific antibiotic time or fluid volume or of serial lactate measurements. Until strong reproducible evidence demonstrates the safety and benefit of any fixed requirement for these interventions, the present findings support the revision of SEP-1 to allow flexibility in treatment according to physician judgment.

What is the Role of Nursing Homes in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign?

Recently, there have been several publications advocating for an expansive role for nursing homes (NHs) in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC). The rationale for this effort is the problem of high rates of 30-day readmissions from NHs and a disproportionate percentage of residents with a diagnosis of sepsis in emergency departments. This article provides a brief history of the SSC and the evolution of the definition of sepsis and of the timing of interventions that make up a "sepsis bundle." Screening tools for sepsis that may be used in the NH setting are discussed. It is emphasized that there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of sepsis, and this limits the ability to identify a screening tool with high sensitivity. Three recent publications that discuss the recognition and management of sepsis in the NH are reviewed, although there is very little published information about this problem. Despite the lack of information about sepsis in NHs, several states have developed protocols for identification and management of sepsis in NHs but there are no results of the impact of these efforts on hospitalization or readmission rates or resident outcome. Based on the review of this information, the ability of NH providers and staff to identify residents with possible sepsis is unclear given no effective screening tool and the recent change in the definition of sepsis that focuses on a point late in the continuum from infection to sepsis with organ dysfunction. Also, NH capability to perform, in a timely fashion, interventions recommended in a sepsis bundle such as insertion of an intravenous catheter, performing blood cultures, administering antibiotics, and fluid resuscitation will likely vary considerably. There is a need for more intensive study of sepsis in the NH setting to identify screening tools with better sensitivity and identification of interventions suitable for the NH setting and that have an impact on various outcomes.

European Society of Emergency Medicine position paper on the 1-hour sepsis bundle of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: expression of concern

In 2018 the Surviving Sepsis Campaign issued new guidance with a revised version of their sepsis bundle. Instead of the 2016 3-hour sepsis bundle, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign now recommends that blood cultures, lactate measurement, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy and 30 ml/kg crystalloid fluid administration should be initiated within 1 hour after triage. The European Society of Emergency Medicine wishes to express its concerns regarding the low level of evidence that underlies this guidance, and the potential implications from an emergency physician point of view.

Assessing Extravascular Lung Water With Ultrasound: A Tool to Individualize Fluid Management?

Aggressive fluid resuscitation has become standard of care for hypotensive patients with sepsis. However, sepsis is a syndrome that occurs in patients with diverse underlying physiology and a one-size-fits-all approach to fluid administration seems misguided. To individualize fluid management, several methods to assess fluid responsiveness have been validated, but even in fluid responsive patients, fluid administration may still be harmful and lead to pulmonary edema. Hence, to individualize fluid management, in addition to fluid responsiveness, fluid tolerance needs to be assessed. This article examines whether lung ultrasound can be useful to detect excess extravascular lung water (EVLW) and thus assess fluid tolerance. The physiology of EVLW and the principles of lung ultrasound are briefly described. Articles examining the correlation between EVLW and lung ultrasound findings in various clinical settings are carefully reviewed. Overall, lung ultrasound has been found to be an excellent tool to detect EVLW, but large outcome studies investigating lung ultrasound-guided fluid management are still lacking.