qSOFA Has Poor Sensitivity for Prehospital Identification of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common and deadly disease process for which early recognition and intervention can significantly improve clinical outcomes. Despite this, sepsis remains underrecognized and therefore undertreated in the prehospital setting. Recent recommendations by the Society of Critical Care and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine advocate use of the qSOFA (quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment) score in non-ICU settings to screen for septic patients at greater risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 for prehospital identification of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Emergency Department (ED) patients with confirmed or suspected infection were classified as having infection without sepsis (n = 71), sepsis (n = 38), or severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 43), where designation of severe sepsis/septic shock required evidence of end-organ dysfunction, hypoperfusion (lactate > 2), or vasopressor requirement. RESULTS: We found that a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 was 16.3% sensitive (95% CI 6.8-30.7%) and 97.3% specific (95% CI 92.1-99.4%) for patients ultimately confirmed to have severe sepsis/septic shock in the ED. Adding an additional point to the prehospital qSOFA score for a pulse > 100, nursing home residence, age > 50, or reported fever increased the sensitivity to 58.1% (95% CI 42.1-73.0%) and decreased the specificity to 78.0% (95% CI 69.0-85.4%). During their ED stay, approximately two-thirds of patients meeting severe sepsis/septic shock criteria eventually met qSOFA criteria with a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% CI 51.5-80.9) and specificity of 86.2% (95% CI 78.3-92). Failure to meet qSOFA criteria prehospital was predominantly due to a systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate that did not yet meet predetermined thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the dynamic nature of sepsis can make sensitive detection difficult in the prehospital setting, although combining qSOFA with other clinical information (age, nursing home status, fever, and tachycardia) can identify more patients with sepsis who may benefit from time critical interventions.

Mechanical Ventilation Practices and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in Air Medical Transport Patients: The AIR-VENT Study.

BACKGROUND: The management of mechanical ventilation critically impacts outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. Ventilator settings in the early post-intubation period may be especially influential on outcome. Low tidal volume ventilation in the prehospital setting has been shown to impact the provision of low tidal volume after admission and influence outcome. However, there is an overall paucity of data on mechanical ventilation for air medical transport patients. The objectives of this study were to characterize air medical transport ventilation practices and assess variables associated with nonprotective ventilation. METHODS: This was a multi-center, nationwide (approximately 130 bases) retrospective cohort study conducted on consecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the cohort; the chi-square test compared categorical variables, and continuous variables were compared using independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test. To assess for predictors of nonprotective ventilation, a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to adjust for potentially confounding variables. Low tidal volume ventilation was defined as a tidal volume of ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). RESULTS: A total of 68,365 subjects were studied. Height was documented in only 4,186 (6.1%) subjects. Significantly higher tidal volume/PBW (8.6 [8.3-9.2] mL vs 6.5 [6.1-7.0] mL) and plateau pressure (20.0 [16.5-25.0] cm H2O vs 18.0 [15.0-22.0] cm H2O) were seen in the nonpro-tective ventilation group (P < .001 for both). According to sex, females received higher tidal volume/PBW compared to males (7.4 [6.6-8.0] mL vs 6.4 [6.0-6.8] mL, P < .001) and composed 75% of those subjects with nonprotective ventilation compared to 25% male, P < .001. After multivariable logistic regression, female sex was an independent predictor of nonprotective ventilation (adjusted odds ratio 6.79 [95% CI 5.47-8.43], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of air medical transport subjects had tidal volume set empirically, which may be exposing patients to nonprotective ventilator settings. Given a lack of PBW assessments, the frequency of low tidal volume use remains unknown. Performance improvement initiatives aimed at indexing tidal volume to PBW are easy targets to improve the delivery of mechanical ventilation in the prehospital arena, especially for females.

The AIR-SED Study: A Multicenter Cohort Study of SEDation Practices, Deep Sedation, and Coma Among Mechanically Ventilated AIR Transport Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize prehospital air medical transport sedation practices and test the hypothesis that modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation are associated with prehospital deep sedation. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A nationwide, multicenter (approximately 130 bases) air medical transport provider. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment (January 2015 to December 2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5; 2) Ramsay Sedation Scale of 5 or 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of less than or equal to 9. Coma was defined as being unresponsive and based on median sedation depth: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -5; 2) Ramsay of 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of 3. A total of 72,148 patients were studied. Prehospital deep sedation was observed in 63,478 patients (88.0%), and coma occurred in 42,483 patients (58.9%). Deeply sedated patients received neuromuscular blockers more frequently and were less likely to have sedation depth documented with a validated sedation depth scale (i.e., Ramsay or Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale). After adjusting for covariates, a multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that the use of longer-acting neuromuscular blockers (i.e., rocuronium and vecuronium) was an independent predictor of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35; p < 0.001), while use of a validated sedation scale was associated with a lower odds of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.27-0.30; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation (and coma) is very common in mechanically ventilated air transport patients and associated with modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation. Sedation practices in the prehospital arena and associated clinical outcomes are in need of further investigation.