ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is common, deadly, and heterogenous. Prior analyses of patients with sepsis and septic shock in New York State showed a risk-adjusted association between more rapid antibiotic administration and bundled care completion, but not an intravenous fluid bolus, with reduced in-hospital mortality. However, it is unknown if clinically identifiable sepsis subtypes modify these associations. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with sepsis and septic shock enrolled in the New York State Department of Health cohort from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified as clinical sepsis subtypes (α, ß, γ, δ-types) using the Sepsis ENdotyping in Emergency CAre (SENECA) approach. Exposure variables included time to 3-h sepsis bundle completion, antibiotic administration, and intravenous fluid bolus completion. Then logistic regression models evaluated the interaction between exposures, clinical sepsis subtypes, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 55,169 hospitalizations from 155 hospitals were included (34% α, 30% ß, 19% γ, 17% δ). The α-subtype had the lowest (N = 1,905, 10%) and δ-subtype had the highest (N = 3,776, 41%) in-hospital mortality. Each hour to completion of the 3-h bundle (aOR, 1.04 [95%CI, 1.02-1.05]) and antibiotic initiation (aOR, 1.03 [95%CI, 1.02-1.04]) was associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The association differed across subtypes (p-interactions < 0.05). For example, the outcome association for the time to completion of the 3-h bundle was greater in the δ-subtype (aOR, 1.07 [95%CI, 1.05-1.10]) compared to α-subtype (aOR, 1.02 [95%CI, 0.99-1.04]). Time to intravenous fluid bolus completion was not associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.99 [95%CI, 0.97-1.01]) and did not differ among subtypes (p-interaction = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Timely completion of a 3-h sepsis bundle and antibiotic initiation was associated with reduced risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, an association modified by clinically identifiable sepsis subtype.
Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases , Sepsis , Shock, Septic , Humans , Shock, Septic/drug therapy , Time-to-Treatment , Sepsis/drug therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Advisory Committees , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Drug Approval , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2 , Stakeholder Participation , United States , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Respiratory variation in carotid artery peak systolic velocity (ΔVpeak) assessed by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a noninvasive means to predict fluid responsiveness. We aimed to evaluate the ability of carotid ΔVpeak as assessed by novice physician sonologists to predict fluid responsiveness. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 intensive care units. Spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with signs of volume depletion were included. Patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter, cardiogenic, obstructive or neurogenic shock, or those for whom further intravenous (IV) fluid administration would be harmful were excluded. Three novice physician sonologists were trained in POCUS assessment of carotid ΔVpeak. They assessed the carotid ΔVpeak in study participants prior to the administration of a 500 mL IV fluid bolus. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a ≥10% increase in cardiac index as measured using bioreactance. RESULTS: Eighty-six participants were enrolled, 50 (58.1%) were fluid responders. Carotid ΔVpeak performed poorly at predicting fluid responsiveness. Test characteristics for the optimum carotid ΔVpeak of 8.0% were: area under the receiver operating curve = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.73), sensitivity = 72.0% (95% CI: 58.3-82.56), specificity = 50.0% (95% CI: 34.5-65.5). CONCLUSIONS: Novice physician sonologists using POCUS are unable to predict fluid responsiveness using carotid ΔVpeak. Until further research identifies key limiting factors, clinicians should use caution directing IV fluid resuscitation using carotid ΔVpeak.
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Physicians , Carotid Arteries , Fluid Therapy , Hemodynamics , Humans , Respiration , Respiration, Artificial , Stroke VolumeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. METHODS: We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. RESULTS: Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Emergency Treatment , Fluid Therapy , Sepsis/mortality , Sepsis/therapy , Time-to-Treatment , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Clinical Audit , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Shock, Septic/mortality , Shock, Septic/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether best practice advisories improved sedation protocol compliance and could mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Two adult ICUs at two academic medical centers that share the same sedation protocol. PATIENTS: Adults 18 years old or older admitted to the ICU between January 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, who received a continuous infusion of propofol. INTERVENTIONS: Two concurrent best practice advisories built in the electronic health record as a clinical decision support tool to enforce protocol compliance with triglyceride and lipase level monitoring and mitigate propofol-related hazardous conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes were baseline and day 3 compliance with triglyceride and lipase laboratory monitoring per protocol and time to discontinuation of propofol in the setting of triglyceride and/or lipase levels exceeding protocol cutoffs. A total of 1,394 patients were included in the study cohort (n = 700 in the pre-best practice advisory group; n = 694 in the post-best practice advisory group). In inverse probability weighted regression analyses, implementing the best practice advisory was associated with a 56.6% (95% CI, 52.6-60.9) absolute increase and a 173% relative increase (risk ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.45-3.04) in baseline laboratory monitoring. The best practice advisory was associated with a 34.0% (95% CI, 20.9-47.1) absolute increase and a 74% (95% CI, 1.39-2.19) relative increase in day 3 laboratory monitoring after inverse probability weighted analyses. Among patients with laboratory values exceeding protocol cutoffs, implementation of the best practice advisory resulted in providers discontinuing propofol an average of 16.6 hours (95% CI, 4.8-28.3) sooner than pre-best practice advisory. Findings from alternate analyses using interrupted time series were consistent with the inverse probability weighted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Best practice advisories can be effectively used in ICUs to improve sedation protocol compliance and may mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. Best practice advisories should undergo continuous quality assurance and optimizations to maximize clinical utility and minimize alert fatigue.
Subject(s)
Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Propofol/administration & dosage , APACHE , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Critical Care/standards , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units/standards , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Length of Stay , Lipase/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Propofol/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Triglycerides/bloodABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The relationship between the timing of antibiotics and mortality among septic shock patients has not been examined among patients specifically with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a Veterans Affairs S. aureus bacteremia database. SETTING: One-hundred twenty-two hospitals in the Veterans Affairs Health System. PATIENTS: Patients with septic shock and S. aureus bacteremia admitted directly from the emergency department to the ICU from January 1, 2003, to October 1, 2015, were evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: Time to appropriate antibiotic administration and 30-day mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 506 patients with S. aureus bacteremia and septic shock were included in the analysis. Thirty-day mortality was 78.1% for the entire cohort and was similar for those participants with methicillin-resistant S. aureus and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus bacteremia. Our multivariate analysis revealed that, as compared with those who received appropriate antibiotics within 1 hour after emergency department presentation, each additional hour that passed before appropriate antibiotics were administered produced an odds ratio of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21) of mortality within 30 days. This odds increase equates to an average adjusted mortality increase of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.4-2.2%) for every hour that passes before antibiotics are administered. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study further support the importance of prompt appropriate antibiotic administration for patients with septic shock. Physicians should consider acting quickly to administer antibiotics with S. aureus coverage to any patient suspected of having septic shock.
Subject(s)
Bacteremia/mortality , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Shock, Septic/mortality , Staphylococcal Infections/mortality , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Shock, Septic/drug therapy , Staphylococcal Infections/diet therapy , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing "Family Care Rituals" as a means of engaging family members in the care of patients admitted to the ICU with a high risk of ICU mortality on outcomes including stress-related symptoms in family members. DESIGN: Prospective, before-and-after intervention evaluation. SETTING: Two U.S. academic medical ICU's, and one Italian academic medical/surgical ICU. SUBJECTS: Family members of patients who had an attending predicted ICU mortality of greater than 30% within the first 24 hours of admission. INTERVENTIONS: A novel intervention titled "Family Care Rituals" during which, following a baseline observation period, family members enrolled in the intervention phase were given an informational booklet outlining opportunities for engagement in care of the patient during their ICU stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in family members 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included symptoms of depression, anxiety, and family satisfaction. At 90-day follow-up, 131 of 226 family members (58.0%) responded preintervention and 129 of 226 family members (57.1%) responded postintervention. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly higher preintervention than postintervention (39.2% vs 27.1%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.58; p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in symptoms of depression (26.5% vs 25.2%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.93; p = 0.818), anxiety (41.0% vs 45.5%; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.20; p = 0.234), or mean satisfaction scores (85.1 vs 89.0; unadjusted odds ratio, 3.85; p = 0.052) preintervention versus postintervention 90 days after patient death or ICU discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Offering opportunities such as family care rituals for family members to be involved with providing care for family members in the ICU was associated with reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This intervention may lessen the burden of stress-related symptoms in family members of ICU patients.
Subject(s)
Ceremonial Behavior , Family/psychology , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/prevention & control , APACHE , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/prevention & control , Consumer Behavior , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Prospective Studies , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Inferior vena cava collapsibility (cIVC) measured by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a noninvasive means of assessing fluid responsiveness. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the performance of a 25% cIVC cutoff value to detect fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients when assessed with POCUS by novice versus expert physician sonologists. METHODS: Prospective observational study of spontaneously breathing ICU patients. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a >10% increase in cardiac index following a 500 mL fluid bolus, measured by bioreactance. Novice sonologist measured cIVC with POCUS. Their measurements were later compared to an expert physician sonologist who independently reviewed the POCUS images and assessed cIVCs. RESULTS: Of the 85 participants, 44 (52%) were fluid responders. A 25% cIVC cutoff value performed better when assessed by expert sonologists than novice physician sonologists (receiver-operator characteristic curve, ROC = 0.82 [0.74-0.88] vs ROC = 0.69 [0.60-0.77]). CONCLUSIONS: A 25% cIVC cutoff value measured by POCUS detects fluid responsiveness. However, the experience of the physician sonologist affects test performance and should be considered when interpreting and clinically using cIVC to direct intravenous fluid resuscitation.
Subject(s)
Fluid Therapy , Vena Cava, Inferior , Adult , Aged , Clinical Competence , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Resuscitation , Ultrasonography , Vena Cava, Inferior/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Because of its analgesic and light sedative properties, the highly selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been suggested for the treatment of septic patients, but its effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation remains unclear. The present study was conducted to review the extant literature in DEX and determine its influence on ventilation time in adult septic patients. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were applied till 20th January 2019 without language restriction. The searching strategy as following: sepsis OR septic AND mechanical ventilation AND dexmedetomidine. Two authors screened titles, abstracts, and even articles to meet the including criterion independently. In addition, references of related articles or reviews were also referred. Data was recorded in a table and analyzed using the software of Review Manager 5.0. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 349 patients were included. Three trials with 267 patients revealed the effect of DEX on duration of mechanical ventilation, two trials with 264 patients on ventilator-free days and four trials with 334 patients on 28-day mortality. The analyzed results indicated that DEX was not associated with significantly different durations of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.65, 95% CI, - 0.13 to 1.42, P = 0.10). However, there were significant differences in ventilator-free days (MD 3.57, 95% CI, 0.26 to 6.89, P = 0.03) and 28-day mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94, P = 0.02) in the septic patients. CONCLUSION: Administration of DEX for sedation in septic patients was not associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation, but it increased the ventilator-free days and reduced 28-day mortality.
Subject(s)
Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial , Sepsis/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sepsis/mortality , Treatment Outcome , Ventilator WeaningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The "END-of-Life ScorING-System" (ENDING-S) was previously developed to identify patients at high-risk of dying in the ICU and to facilitate a practical integration between palliative and intensive care. The aim of this study is to prospectively validate ENDING-S in a cohort of long-term critical care patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult long-term ICU patients (with a length-of-stay> 4 days) were considered for this prospective multicenter observational study. ENDING-S and SOFA score were calculated daily and evaluated against the patient's ICU outcome. The predictive properties were evaluated through a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients were enrolled for this study. Among these, 21.46% died during the ICU stay. ENDING-S correctly predicted the ICU outcome in 71.4% of patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values associated with the previously identified ENDING-S cut-off of 11.5 were 68.1, 72.3, 60 and 89.3%, respectively. ROC-AUC for outcome prediction was 0.79 for ENDING-S and 0.88 for SOFA in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: ENDING-S, while not as accurately as in the pilot study, demonstrated acceptable discrimination properties in identifying long-term ICU patients at very high-risk of dying. ENDING-S may be a useful tool aimed at facilitating a practical integration between palliative, end-of-life and intensive care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875912; First registration August 4, 2016.
Subject(s)
Critical Care/methods , Death , Health Status Indicators , Terminal Care/methods , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear if a low- or high-volume IV fluid resuscitation strategy is better for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two adult acute care hospitals within a single academic system. PATIENTS: Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from November 2016 to February 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to a restrictive IV fluid resuscitation strategy (≤ 60 mL/kg of IV fluid) or usual care for the first 72 hours of care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 109 patients, of whom 55 were assigned to the restrictive resuscitation group and 54 to the usual care group. The restrictive group received significantly less resuscitative IV fluid than the usual care group (47.1 vs 61.1 mL/kg; p = 0.01) over 72 hours. By 30 days, there were 12 deaths (21.8%) in the restrictive group and 12 deaths (22.2%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41-2.53). There were no differences between groups in the rate of new organ failure, hospital or ICU length of stay, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that a restrictive resuscitation strategy can successfully reduce the amount of IV fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared with usual care. Although limited by the sample size, we observed no increase in mortality, organ failure, or adverse events. These findings further support that a restrictive IV fluid strategy should be explored in a larger multicenter trial.
Subject(s)
Fluid Therapy/methods , Shock, Septic/mortality , Shock, Septic/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Sepsis/mortality , Sepsis/therapyABSTRACT
The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment or SOFA score was developed to assess the acute morbidity of critical illness at a population level and has been widely validated as a tool for this purpose across a range of healthcare settings and environments.In recent years, the SOFA score has become extensively used in a range of other applications. A change in the SOFA score of 2 or more is now a defining characteristic of the sepsis syndrome, and the European Medicines Agency has accepted that a change in the SOFA score is an acceptable surrogate marker of efficacy in exploratory trials of novel therapeutic agents in sepsis. The requirement to detect modest serial changes in a patients' SOFA score therefore means that increased clarity on how the score should be assessed in different circumstances is required.This review explores the development of the SOFA score, its applications and the challenges associated with measurement. In addition, it proposes guidance designed to facilitate the consistent and valid assessment of the score in multicentre sepsis trials involving novel therapeutic agents or interventions.ConclusionThe SOFA score is an increasingly important tool in defining both the clinical condition of the individual patient and the response to therapies in the context of clinical trials. Standardisation between different assessors in widespread centres is key to detecting response to treatment if the SOFA score is to be used as an outcome in sepsis clinical trials.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Research/standards , Humans , Program Development/methods , Research/trends , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
RATIONALE: In 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) began a mandatory state-wide initiative to improve early recognition and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. OBJECTIVES: This study examines protocol initiation, 3-hour and 6-hour sepsis bundle completion, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality among adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: Cohort analysis included all patients from all 185 hospitals in New York State reported to the NYSDOH from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. A total of 113,380 cases were submitted to NYSDOH, of which 91,357 hospitalizations from 183 hospitals met study inclusion criteria. NYSDOH required all hospitals to submit and follow evidence-informed protocols (including elements of 3-h and 6-h sepsis bundles: lactate measurement, early blood cultures and antibiotic administration, fluids, and vasopressors) for early identification and treatment of severe sepsis or septic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compliance with elements of the sepsis bundles and risk-adjusted mortality were studied. Of 91,357 patients, 74,293 (81.3%) had the sepsis protocol initiated. Among these individuals, 3-hour bundle compliance increased from 53.4% to 64.7% during the study period (P < 0.001), whereas among those eligible for the 6-hour bundle (n = 35,307) compliance increased from 23.9% to 30.8% (P < 0.001). Risk-adjusted mortality decreased from 28.8% to 24.4% (P < 0.001) in patients among whom a sepsis protocol was initiated. Greater hospital compliance with 3-hour and 6-hour bundles was associated with shorter length of stay and lower risk and reliability-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: New York's statewide initiative increased compliance with sepsis-performance measures. Risk-adjusted sepsis mortality decreased during the initiative and was associated with increased hospital-level compliance.
Subject(s)
Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Policy , Mandatory Reporting , Sepsis/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome have severely altered physiology and immune system modifications. RNA splicing is a basic molecular mechanism influenced by physiologic alterations. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as B and T Lymphocyte Attenuator (BTLA) have previously been shown to influence outcomes in critical illness. We hypothesize altered physiology in critical illness results in alternative RNA splicing of the immune checkpoint protein, BTLA, resulting in a soluble form with biologic and clinical significance. METHODS: Samples were collected from critically ill humans and mice. Levels soluble BTLA (sBTLA) were measured. Ex vivo experiments assessing for cellular proliferation and cytokine production were done using splenocytes from critically ill mice cultured with sBTLA. Deep RNA sequencing was done to look for alternative splicing of BTLA. sBTLA levels were fitted to models to predict sepsis diagnosis. RESULTS: sBTLA is increased in the blood of critically ill humans and mice and can predict a sepsis diagnosis on hospital day 0 in humans. Alternative RNA splicing results in a premature stop codon that results in the soluble form. sBTLA has a clinically relevant impact as splenocytes from mice with critical illness cultured with soluble BTLA have increased cellular proliferation. CONCLUSION: sBTLA is produced as a result of alternative RNA splicing. This isoform of BTLA has biological significance through changes in cellular proliferation and can predict the diagnosis of sepsis.
Subject(s)
Alternative Splicing , Critical Illness , Receptors, Immunologic/blood , Animals , Humans , Male , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Middle Aged , Sepsis/diagnosis , Spleen/cytologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: In accordance with Rory's Regulations, hospitals across New York State developed and implemented protocols for sepsis recognition and treatment to reduce variations in evidence informed care and preventable mortality. The New York Department of Health sought to develop a risk assessment model for accurate and standardized hospital mortality comparisons of adult septic patients across institutions using case-mix adjustment. DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data. PATIENTS: Data from 43,204 severe sepsis and septic shock patients from 179 hospitals across New York State were evaluated. SETTINGS: Prospective data were submitted to a database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to estimate model coefficients used in the New York State risk model. The mortality probability was estimated using a logistic regression model. Variables to be included in the model were determined as part of the model-building process. Interactions between variables were included if they made clinical sense and if their p values were less than 0.05. Model development used a random sample of 90% of available patients and was validated using the remaining 10%. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit p values were considerably greater than 0.05, suggesting good calibration. Areas under the receiver operator curve in the developmental and validation subsets were 0.770 (95% CI, 0.765-0.775) and 0.773 (95% CI, 0.758-0.787), respectively, indicating good discrimination. Development and validation datasets had similar distributions of estimated mortality probabilities. Mortality increased with rising age, comorbidities, and lactate. CONCLUSIONS: The New York Sepsis Severity Score accurately estimated the probability of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. It performed well with respect to calibration and discrimination. This sepsis-specific model provides an accurate, comprehensive method for standardized mortality comparison of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Subject(s)
Sepsis/pathology , Severity of Illness Index , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Probability , Retrospective Studies , Risk Adjustment , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Sepsis/classification , Sepsis/etiology , Sepsis/mortality , Shock, Septic/classification , Shock, Septic/etiology , Shock, Septic/mortality , Shock, Septic/pathology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Outbreaks of disease, especially those that are declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, present substantial ethical challenges. Here we start a discourse (with a continuation of the dialogue in Ethics of Outbreaks Position Statement. Part 2: Family-Centered Care) concerning the ethics of the provision of medical care, research challenges and behaviors during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a focus on the proper conduct of clinical or epidemiologic research, clinical trial designs, unregistered medical interventions (including vaccine introduction, devices, pharmaceuticals, who gets treated, vulnerable populations, and methods of data collection), economic losses, and whether there is a duty of health care providers to provide care in such emergencies, and highlighting the need to understand cultural diversity and local communities in these efforts. DESIGN: Development of a Society of Critical Care Medicine position statement using literature review and expert consensus from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics committee. The committee had representation from ethics, medical philosophy, critical care, nursing, internal medicine, emergency medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, surgery, and members with international health and military experience. SETTING: Provision of therapies for patients who are critically ill or who have the potential of becoming critically ill, and their families, regarding medical therapies and the extent of treatments. POPULATION: Critically ill patients and their families affected by a Public Health Emergency of International Concern that need provision of medical therapies. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN RESULTS: Interventions by high income countries in a Public Health Emergency of International Concern must always be cognizant of avoiding a paternalistic stance and must understand how families and communities are structured and the regional/local traditions that affect public discourse. Additionally, the obligations, or the lack of obligations, of healthcare providers regarding the treatment of affected individuals and communities must also be acknowledged. Herein, we review such matters and suggest recommendations regarding the ethics of engagement in an outbreak that is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making/ethics , Critical Care/ethics , Critical Illness/therapy , Disease Outbreaks/ethics , Emergency Medical Services/ethics , Ethics Committees, Research , Advisory Committees , Consensus , Critical Care/organization & administration , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Humans , International Cooperation , Public Health/ethicsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Continue the dialogue presented in Ethics of Outbreaks Position Statement. Part 1, with a focus on strategies for provision of family-centered care in critical illness during Pubic Health Emergency of International Concern. DESIGN: Development of a Society of Critical Care Medicine position statement using literature review, expert consensus from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. A family member of a patient who was critically ill during a natural disaster served on the writing panel and provided validation from a family perspective to the recommendations. SETTING: Provision of family-centered care and support for patients who are critically ill or who have the potential of becoming critically ill, and their families, during a Pubic Health Emergency of International Concern. INTERVENTIONS: Communication; family support. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Family-centered interventions during a Pubic Health Emergency of International Concern include understanding how crisis standards may affect regional and local traditions. Transparently communicate changes in decision-making authority and uncertainty regarding treatments and outcomes to the family and community. Assess family coping, increase family communication and support, and guide families regarding possible engagement strategies during crisis. Prepare the public to accept survivors returning to the community.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making/ethics , Communicable Diseases/therapy , Critical Care/ethics , Critical Illness/therapy , Emergency Medical Services/ethics , Family , Advisory Committees , Communicable Diseases/epidemiology , Consensus , Critical Care/organization & administration , Ethics Committees , Ethics Committees, Research , Humans , Public Health/ethicsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Under "Rory's Regulations," New York State Article 28 acute care hospitals were mandated to implement sepsis protocols and report patient-level data. This study sought to determine how well cases reported under state mandate align with discharge records in a statewide administrative database. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: First 27 months of mandated sepsis reporting (April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016). PATIENTS: Hospitalizations with sepsis at New York State Article 28 acute care hospitals. INTERVENTION: Sepsis regulations with mandated reporting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared cases reported to the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database with discharge records in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. We classified discharges as 1) "coded sepsis discharges"-a diagnosis code for severe sepsis or septic shock and 2) "possible sepsis discharges," using Dombrovskiy and Angus criteria. Of 111,816 sepsis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database, 105,722 (94.5%) were matched to discharge records in Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. The percentage of coded sepsis discharges reported increased from 67.5% in the first quarter to 81.3% in the final quarter of the study period (mean, 77.7%). Accounting for unmatched cases, as many as 82.7% of coded sepsis discharges were potentially reported, whereas at least 17.3% were unreported. Compared with unreported discharges, reported discharges had higher rates of acute organ dysfunction (e.g., cardiovascular dysfunction 63.0% vs 51.8%; p < 0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (30.2% vs 26.1%; p < 0.001). Hospital characteristics (e.g., number of beds, teaching status, volume of sepsis cases) were similar between hospitals with a higher versus lower percent of discharges reported, p values greater than 0.05 for all. Hospitals' percent of discharges reported was not correlated with risk-adjusted mortality of their submitted cases (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.11; p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately four of five discharges with a diagnosis code of severe sepsis or septic shock in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System data were reported in the New York State Department of Health Sepsis Clinical Database. Incomplete reporting appears to be driven more by underrecognition than attempts to game the system, with minimal bias to risk-adjusted hospital performance measurement.