Predictors of patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis and progress to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately one in every four patients who present to the emergency department with sepsis progresses to septic shock within 72 hours of arrival. In this study, we describe key patient characteristics present within 4 hours of emergency department arrival that are associated with developing septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a retrospective chart review study of all patients hospitalized from the emergency department with two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria present within 4 hours of emergency department arrival from September 2010 to February 2011 at two large academic institutions. Patients were excluded if they presented with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction, acute stroke, or trauma; had a cardiac arrest prior to arrival; were pregnant; or admitted from the emergency department psychiatric unit or transferred from an outside hospital. We identified patients with within 4 hours of emergency department arrival and identified those with septic shock at 48 hours after emergency department arrival, using a standard set of guidelines. The primary objective was identifying the number of patients who present with sepsis and progress to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. As to the second objective, we used multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify patient factors associated with the progression of sepsis to septic shock for the aforementioned population. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 18,100 patients were admitted from the emergency department, of which 3,960 patients had two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and 1,316 patients had sepsis within 4 hours of emergency department arrival. Although 50 patients presented to the emergency department with septic shock within 4 hours of arrival, 111 patients with sepsis (8.4%) progressed to septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival. Characteristics associated with the progression of septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival included female gender (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.47), nonpersistent hypotension (odds ratio, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.58-10.86), bandemia at least 10% (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.50-4.51), lactate at least 4.0 mmol/L (odds ratio, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.59-10.84), and past medical of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% 1.26-3.44). CONCLUSION: Approximately 12% of septic emergency department patients develop shock within 48 hours of presentation, and more than half of these patients develop shock after the first 4 hours of emergency department arrival. Over a third of patients who have sepsis within 4 hours of emergency department arrival and develop septic shock between 4 and 48 hours of emergency department arrival are not admitted to an ICU.

Trauma airway management.

BACKGROUND: Airway management in a trauma patient can be particularly challenging when both a difficult airway and the need for rapid action collide. The provider must evaluate the trauma patient for airway difficulty, develop an airway management plan, and be willing to act quickly with incomplete information. DISCUSSION: Thorough knowledge of airway management algorithms will assist the emergency physician in providing optimal care and offer a rapid and effective treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: Using a case-based approach, this article reviews initial trauma airway management strategies along with the rationale for evidence-based treatments.

The impact of early monitored management on survival in hospitalized adult Ugandan patients with severe sepsis: a prospective intervention study*.

UNLABELLED: In sub-Saharan Africa, sepsis is an important cause of mortality. Optimal sepsis management including fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic administration, and patient monitoring is limited by lack of supplies and skilled health workers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early, monitored sepsis management provided by a study medical officer can improve survival among patients with severe sepsis admitted to two public hospitals in Uganda. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective before and after study of an intervention cohort (n = 426) with severe sepsis receiving early, monitored sepsis management compared to an observation cohort (n = 245) of similarly ill patients with severe sepsis receiving standard management after admission to the medical wards of two Ugandan hospitals. INTERVENTION: Early sepsis management provided by a dedicated study medical officer comprising fluid resuscitation, early antibiotics, and regular monitoring in the first 6 hrs of hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Kaplan-Meier survival and unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to compare the effect of early, monitored sepsis management on 30-day mortality between the intervention cohort (enrolled May 2008 to May 2009) and observation cohort (enrolled July 2006 to November 2006). RESULTS: The majority (86%) of patients in both cohorts were human immuno-deficiency virus-infected. Median fluid volume provided in the first 6 hrs of hospitalization was higher in intervention than observation cohort patients (3000 mL vs. 500 mL, p < .001) and a greater proportion of intervention cohort patients received antibacterial therapy in <1 hr (67% vs. 30.4%, p < .001). Mortality at 30 days was significantly lower in the intervention cohort compared to the observation cohort (33.0% vs. 45.7%, log-rank p = .005). After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard of 30-day mortality was 26% less in the intervention cohort compared to the observation cohort (adjusted hazards ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.98). Mortality among the 13% of intervention patients who developed signs of respiratory distress was associated with baseline illness severity rather than fluid volume administered. CONCLUSION: Early, monitored management of severely septic patients in Uganda improves survival and is feasible and safe even in a busy public referral hospital.

Right bundle-branch block in acute coronary syndrome: diagnostic and therapeutic implications for the emergency physician.

Right bundle-branch block (RBBB) in the patient with acute coronary syndrome is a marker of significant potential cardiovascular risk; the RBBB pattern in the patient with acute coronary syndrome identifies a subgroup of patients with quite high short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Right bundle-branch block is not an uncommon finding on an electrocardiogram in the emergency department patient, noted incidentally and thus without clinical import or, conversely, encountered in the early phase of significant cardiovascular dysfunction. This review will address RBBB in the acute coronary syndrome setting.