Out-of-hospital sepsis recognition by paramedics improves the course of disease and mortality: A single center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of sepsis and a prompt initiation of goal-directed therapy is important for sepsis survival. Little is known about the impact of early recognition of sepsis in the out-of-hospital setting when paramedics are the 1st medical professionals arriving on the scene. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the impact of sepsis recognition by paramedics in the 1st out-of-hospital contact and to establish a predictive model by combining preclinical patient characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, we included a total of 263 patients diagnosed with sepsis after admission to the emergency department and correlated them to the emergency medical protocols of the paramedics who have seen the patient out-of-hospital. RESULTS: Only 25 patients were correctly diagnosed by paramedics out-of-hospital. If sepsis was diagnosed, the median time to antibiotic administration was significantly lower (136.50 min compared to 206.98 min, p = 0.0069) and mortality was reduced from 22.8% to 8% (p = 0.0292). We have identified predictors for prognosis and calculated a predictive model with a modified quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, which fits the needs for out-of-hospital usage and results in a better discrimination of vitally threatened patients (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under curve (AUC) of 0.641 compared to 0.719), as compared to the standard qSOFA. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis recognition by paramedics at the 1st out-of-hospital contact significantly reduces sepsis mortality. The qSOFA and modified qSOFA are suitable tools for sepsis recognition, and have an impact on mortality and disease management when used.

Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR. METHODS: Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status. RESULTS: A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection. CONCLUSION: The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.