Computed tomography in patients with sepsis presenting to the emergency department: exploring its role in light of patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the role of CT in septic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of 192 septic patients from a prospective observational study, i.e., the "LIFE POC" study. Sepsis was diagnosed in accordance with the Sepsis-3 definition. Clinical and radiological data were collected from the hospital administration and radiological systems. Information on mortality and morbidity was collected. Time-to-CT between CT scan and sepsis diagnosis (ttCTsd) was calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the final sepsis source as reference standard. The reference standard was established through the treating team of the patient based on all available clinical, imaging, and microbiological data. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 192 patients underwent a CT examination for sepsis focus detection. The final septic source was identified by CT in 69.4% (n = 43). CT detected septic foci with 81.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 68.0-90.6%) and 55.6% specificity (95% CI, 21.2-86.3%). Patients with short versus long ttCTsd did not differ in terms of mortality (16.1%, n = 5 vs 9.7, n = 3; p = 0.449), length of hospital stay (median 16 d, IQR 9 d 12 h-23 d 18 h vs median 13 d, IQR 10 d 00 h-24 d 00 h; p = 0.863), or duration of intensive care (median 3d 12 h, IQR 2 d 6 h-7 d 18 h vs median 5d, IQR 2 d-11 d; p = 0.800). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a high sensitivity of CT in ED patients with sepsis, confirming its relevance in guiding treatment decisions. The low specificity suggests that a negative CT requires further ancillary diagnostic tests for focus detection. The timing of CT did not affect morbidity or mortality outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In patients with sepsis who present to the ED, CT can be used to identify infectious foci on the basis of clinical suspicion, but should not be used as a rule-out test. Scientific evidence for the optimal timing of CT beyond clinical decision-making is currently missing, as potential mortality benefits are clouded by differences in clinical severity at the time of ED presentation. KEY POINTS: • In patients with sepsis who present to the ED, CT for focus identification has a high sensitivity and can thereby be valuable for patient management. • As the specificity is considerably lower, a thorough microbiological assessment is important in these cases. • The timing of CT did not affect morbidity and mortality outcomes in this study, which might be due to variability in clinical severity at the time of ED presentation.

Biomarkers Improve Diagnostics of Sepsis in Adult Patients With Suspected Organ Dysfunction Based on the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) Score in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Consensus regarding biomarkers for detection of infection-related organ dysfunction in the emergency department is lacking. We aimed to identify and validate biomarkers that could improve risk prediction for overt or incipient organ dysfunction when added to quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a screening tool. DESIGN: In a large prospective multicenter cohort of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1, admission plasma levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, adrenomedullin (either bioavailable adrenomedullin or midregional fragment of proadrenomedullin), proenkephalin, and dipeptidyl peptidase 3 were assessed. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was applied to assess the impact of these biomarkers alone or in combination to detect the primary endpoint of prediction of sepsis within 96 hours of admission. SETTING: Three tertiary emergency departments at German University Hospitals (Jena University Hospital and two sites of the Charité University Hospital, Berlin). PATIENTS: One thousand four hundred seventy-seven adult patients presenting with suspected organ dysfunction based on qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The cohort was of moderate severity with 81% presenting with qSOFA = 1; 29.2% of these patients developed sepsis. Procalcitonin outperformed all other biomarkers regarding the primary endpoint (area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic [AUC-ROC], 0.86 [0.79-0.93]). Adding other biomarkers failed to further improve the AUC-ROC for the primary endpoint; however, they improved the model regarding several secondary endpoints, such as mortality, need for vasopressors, or dialysis. Addition of procalcitonin with a cutoff level of 0.25 ng/mL improved net (re)classification by 35.2% compared with qSOFA alone, with positive and negative predictive values of 60.7% and 88.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers of infection and organ dysfunction, most notably procalcitonin, substantially improve early prediction of sepsis with added value to qSOFA alone as a simple screening tool on emergency department admission.

Understanding health care pathways of patients with sepsis: protocol of a mixed-methods analysis of health care utilization, experiences, and needs of patients with and after sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with about 20% of deaths worldwide. It often presents with non-specific initial symptoms, making its emergency treatment an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral challenge. Three in four sepsis survivors suffers from new cognitive, psychological, or physical sequelae for which specific treatment concepts are scarce. The AVENIR project aims to improve the understanding of patient pathways, and subjective care experiences and needs along the entire healthcare pathway before, with and after sepsis. Based on this, concrete recommendations for the organization of care and patient information materials will be developed with close patient participation. METHODS: Mixed-methods study including (1) analysis of anonymized nationwide health claims data from Germany, (2) linkage of health claims data with patient care reports (PCR) of emergency medical services from study regions in two federal states within Germany, and (3) qualitative exploration of the patient, relative, and care provider perspective on sepsis care. In (1), we analyze inpatient and outpatient health care utilization until 30 days pre-sepsis; clinical sepsis care including intra- and inter-hospital transfers; and rehabilitation, inpatient and outpatient aftercare of sepsis survivors as well as costs for health care utilization until 24 months post-sepsis. We attempt to identify survivor classes with similar health care utilization by Latent Class Analyses. In (2), PCR are linked with health claims data to establish a comprehensive database outlining care pathways for sepsis patients from pre-hospital to follow-up. We investigate e.g., whether correct initial assessment is associated with acute (e.g., same-day lethality) and long-term (e.g., new need for care, long-term mortality) outcomes of patients. We compare the performance of sepsis-specific screening tools such as qSOFA, NEWS-2 or PRESEP in the pre-clinical setting. In (3), semi-structured interviews as well as synchronous and asynchronous online focus groups are conducted and analyzed using qualitative content analyses techniques. DISCUSSION: The results of the AVENIR study will contribute to a deeper understanding of sepsis care pathways in Germany. They may serve as a base for improvements and innovations in sepsis care, that in the long-term can contribute to reduce the personal, medical, and societal burden of sepsis and its sepsis sequelae. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at German Clinical Trial Register (ID: DRKS00031302, date of registration: 5th May 2023).

Understanding the biases to sepsis surveillance and quality assurance caused by inaccurate coding in administrative health data.

PURPOSE: Timely and accurate data on the epidemiology of sepsis are essential to inform policy decisions and research priorities. We aimed to investigate the validity of inpatient administrative health data (IAHD) for surveillance and quality assurance of sepsis care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective validation study in a disproportional stratified random sample of 10,334 inpatient cases of age ≥ 15 years treated in 2015-2017 in ten German hospitals. The accuracy of coding of sepsis and risk factors for mortality in IAHD was assessed compared to reference standard diagnoses obtained by a chart review. Hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis as calculated from IAHD information was compared to mortality calculated from chart review information. RESULTS: ICD-coding of sepsis in IAHD showed high positive predictive value (76.9-85.7% depending on sepsis definition), but low sensitivity (26.8-38%), which led to an underestimation of sepsis incidence (1.4% vs. 3.3% for severe sepsis-1). Not naming sepsis in the chart was strongly associated with under-coding of sepsis. The frequency of correctly naming sepsis and ICD-coding of sepsis varied strongly between hospitals (range of sensitivity of naming: 29-71.7%, of ICD-diagnosis: 10.7-58.5%). Risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis per hospital calculated from coding in IAHD showed no substantial correlation to reference standard risk-adjusted mortality (r = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Due to the under-coding of sepsis in IAHD, previous epidemiological studies underestimated the burden of sepsis in Germany. There is a large variability between hospitals in accuracy of diagnosing and coding of sepsis. Therefore, IAHD alone is not suited to assess quality of sepsis care.

Association between hospital onset of infection and outcomes in sepsis patients - A propensity score matched cohort study based on health claims data in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired infections are a common source of sepsis. Hospital onset of sepsis was found to be associated with higher acute mortality and hospital costs, yet its impact on long-term patient-relevant outcomes and costs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the association between sepsis origin and acute and long-term outcomes based on a nationwide population-based cohort of sepsis patients in Germany. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used nationwide health claims data from 23 million health insurance beneficiaries. Sepsis patients with hospital-acquired infections (HAI) were identified by ICD-10-codes in a cohort of adult patients with hospital-treated sepsis between 2013 and 2014. Cases without these ICD-10-codes were considered as sepsis cases with community-acquired infection (CAI) and were matched with HAI sepsis patients by propensity score matching. Outcomes included in-hospital/12-month mortality and costs, as well as readmissions and nursing care dependency until 12 months postsepsis. RESULTS: We matched 33,110 HAI sepsis patients with 28,614 CAI sepsis patients and 22,234 HAI sepsis hospital survivors with 19,364 CAI sepsis hospital survivors. HAI sepsis patients had a higher hospital mortality than CAI sepsis patients (32.8% vs. 25.4%, RR 1.3, p < .001). Similarly, 12-months postacute mortality was higher (37.2% vs. 30.1%, RR=1.2, p < .001). Hospital and 12-month health care costs were 178% and 22% higher in HAI patients than in CAI patients, respectively. Twelve months postsepsis, HAI sepsis survivors were more often newly dependent on nursing care (33.4% vs. 24.0%, RR=1.4, p < .001) and experienced 5% more hospital readmissions (mean number of readmissions: 2.1 vs. 2.0, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HAI sepsis patients face an increased risk of adverse outcomes both during the acute sepsis episode and in the long-term. Measures to prevent HAI and its progression into sepsis may be an opportunity to mitigate the burden of long-term impairments and costs of sepsis, e.g., by early detection of HAI progressing into sepsis, particularly in normal wards; adequate sepsis management and adherence to sepsis bundles in hospital-acquired sepsis; and an improved infection prevention and control.

Most patients with an increased risk for sepsis-related morbidity or death do not recognize sepsis as a medical emergency: results of a survey study using case vignettes.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a medical emergency with potentially life-threatening consequences. Patients play a crucial role in preventing and recognizing sepsis at an early stage. The understanding of risk groups' sepsis knowledge and their ability to use this knowledge to recognize sepsis as an emergency is incomplete. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in Germany and included a sample of 740 persons stratified by age (< 60 years, ≥ 60 years), specific chronic diseases (e.g. diabetes, chronic diseases, cancer), and region (Berlin/Brandenburg vs. other federal states of Germany). Standardized questionnaires were administered by a market research institute through online, telephone, or face-to-face methods. We assessed sepsis knowledge through a series of questions and the ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency through five case vignettes. To identify predictors of sepsis knowledge and the ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency, we conducted multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: Of the 36 items on sepsis knowledge, participants answered less than 50 per cent correctly (mean 44.1%; standard deviation (SD) 20.1). Most patients knew that sepsis is a defensive host response to infection (75.9%), but only 30.8% knew that vaccination can prevent infections that lead to sepsis. Across the five vignettes, participants identified sepsis as an emergency in only 1.33 of all cases on average (SD = 1.27). Sepsis knowledge was higher among participants who were older, female, and more highly educated and who reported more extensive health information seeking behaviour. The ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency was higher among younger participants, participants without chronic diseases, and participants with higher health literacy, but it was not significantly associated with sepsis knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Risk groups showed low levels of knowledge regarding the preventive importance of vaccination and a low ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency. Higher levels of sepsis knowledge alone were not sufficient to improve the ability to identify sepsis as a medical emergency. It is crucial to develop effective educational strategies-especially for persons with lower education levels and infrequent health information seeking behaviour-that not only transfer but also facilitate the choice of appropriate actions, such as seeking timely emergency care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00024561. Registered 9 March 2021.

Estimating Sepsis Incidence Using Administrative Data and Clinical Medical Record Review.

Importance: Despite the large health burden, reliable data on sepsis epidemiology are lacking; studies using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-coded hospital discharge diagnosis for sepsis identification suffer from limited sensitivity. Also, ICD data do not allow investigation of underlying pathogens and antimicrobial resistance. Objectives: To generate reliable epidemiological estimates by linking data from a population-based database to a reference standard of clinical medical record review. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using a population-based administrative database including all acute care hospitals of the Scania region in Sweden in 2019 and 2020 to identify hospital-treated sepsis cases by ICD codes. From this database, clinical medical records were also selected for review within 6 strata defined by ICD discharge diagnosis (both with and without sepsis diagnosis). Data were analyzed from April to October 2022. Main outcomes and measures: Hospital and population incidences of sepsis, case fatality, antimicrobial resistance, and temporal dynamics due to COVID-19 were assessed, as well as validity of ICD-10 case identification methods compared with the reference standard of clinical medical record review. Results: Out of 295 531 hospitalizations in 2019 in the Scania region of Sweden, 997 patient medical records were reviewed, among which 457 had sepsis according to clinical criteria. Of the patients with clinical sepsis, 232 (51%) were female, and 357 (78%) had at least 1 comorbidity. The median (IQR) age of the cohort was 76 (67-85) years. The incidence of sepsis in hospitalized patients according to the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria in 2019 was 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6-4.5) by medical record review. This corresponds to an annual incidence rate of 747 (95% CI, 663-832) patients with sepsis per 100 000 population. No significant increase in sepsis during the COVID-19 pandemic nor a decrease in sepsis incidence when excluding COVID-19 sepsis was observed. Few sepsis cases caused by pathogens with antimicrobial resistance were found. The validity of ICD-10-based case identification in administrative data was low. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of sepsis epidemiology, sepsis was a considerable burden to public health in Sweden. Supplying administrative data with information from clinical medical records can help to generate reliable data on sepsis epidemiology.

Return to work after sepsis-a German population-based health claims study.

Background: Long-term impairments after sepsis can impede the return to work in survivors. We aimed to describe rates of return to work 6 and 12 months postsepsis. Methods: This retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on health claims data of the German AOK health insurance of 23.0 million beneficiaries. We included 12-months survivors after hospital-treated sepsis in 2013/2014, who were ≤60 years at the time of the admission and were working in the year presepsis. We assessed the prevalence of return to work (RTW), persistent inability to work and early retirement. Results: Among 7,370 working age sepsis survivors, 69.2% returned to work at 6 months postsepsis, while 22.8% were on sick leave and 8.0% retired early. At 12 months postsepsis, the RTW rate increased to 76.9%, whereas 9.8% were still on sick leave and 13.3% retired early. Survivors who returned to work had a mean of 70 (SD 93) sick leave days in the 12 months presepsis (median 28 days, IQR 108 days). Conclusion: One out of four working age sepsis survivors does not resume work in the year postsepsis. Specific rehabilitation and targeted aftercare may be opportunities to reduce barriers to RTW after sepsis.

Urban-Rural Disparities in Case Fatality of Community-Acquired Sepsis in Germany: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine urban-rural disparities in sepsis case fatality rates among patients with community-acquired sepsis in Germany. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using de-identified data of the nationwide statutory health insurance AOK, covering approx. 30% of the German population. We compared in-hospital- and 12-month case fatality between rural and urban sepsis patients. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and the estimated adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) using logistic regression models to account for potential differences in the distribution of age, comorbidities, and sepsis characteristics between rural and urban citizens. RESULTS: We identified 118,893 hospitalized patients with community-acquired sepsis in 2013-2014 with direct hospital admittance. Sepsis patients from rural areas had lower in-hospital case fatality rates compared to their urban counterparts (23.7% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.91 (95% CI 0.88, 0.94), ORadj = 0.89 (95% CI 0.86, 0.92)). Similar differences were observable for 12-month case fatalities (45.8% rural vs. 47.0% urban 12-month case fatality, p < 0.001, OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.98), ORadj = 0.92 (95% CI 0.89, 0.94)). Survival benefits were also observable in rural patients with severe community-acquired sepsis or patients admitted as emergencies. Rural patients of <40 years had half the odds of dying in hospital compared to urban patients in this age bracket (ORadj = 0.49 (95% CI 0.23, 0.75), p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Rural residence is associated with short- and long-term survival benefits in patients with community-acquired sepsis. Further research on patient, community, and health-care system factors is needed to understand the causative mechanisms of these disparities.

Sepsis survivors and caregivers perspectives on post-acute rehabilitation and aftercare in the first year after sepsis in Germany.

Background: Sepsis survivors often suffer from new morbidities. Current rehabilitation therapies are not tailored to their specific needs. The perspective of sepsis survivors and their caregivers on rehabilitation and aftercare is insufficiently understood. We aimed to assess how sepsis survivors in Germany rated the suitability, extent and satisfaction with rehabilitation therapies that they underwent in the year following the acute sepsis episode. Methods: Prospective mixed-methods, multicenter study among a cohort of adult ICU-treated sepsis survivors and their caregivers. Interviews were conducted 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge by telephone and comprised closed as well as open-ended questions. Primary outcomes were the utilization and patient satisfaction with inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation and post-sepsis aftercare in general. Open-ended questions were analyzed according to the principles of content analysis. Results: Foun hundred interviews were performed with 287 patients and/or relatives. At 6 months after sepsis, 85.0% of survivors had applied for and 70.0% had undergone rehabilitation. Among these, 97% received physical therapy, but only a minority reported therapies for specific ailments including pain, weaning from mechanical ventilation, cognitive deficits of fatigue. Survivors were moderately satisfied with the suitability, extent, and overall results of received therapies and perceived deficits in the timeliness, accessibility, and specificity of therapies as well as deficits in the structural support frameworks and patient education. Conclusion: From the perspective of survivors who undergo rehabilitation, therapies should already begin in hospital, be more appropriate for their specific ailments and include better patient and caregiver education. The general aftercare and structural support framework should be improved.

The Effects of Postacute Rehabilitation on Mortality, Chronic Care Dependency, Health Care Use, and Costs in Sepsis Survivors.

Rationale: Sepsis often leads to long-term functional deficits and increased mortality in survivors. Postacute rehabilitation can decrease long-term sepsis mortality, but its impact on nursing care dependency, health care use, and costs is insufficiently understood. Objectives: To assess the short-term (7-12 months postdischarge) and long-term (13-36 months postdischarge) effect of inpatient rehabilitation within 6 months after hospitalization on mortality, nursing care dependency, health care use, and costs. Methods: An observational cohort study used health claims data from the health insurer AOK (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse). Among 23.0 million AOK beneficiaries, adult beneficiaries hospitalized with sepsis in 2013-2014 were identified by explicit codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. The study included patients who were nonemployed presepsis, for whom rehabilitation is reimbursed by the AOK and thus included in the dataset, and who survived at least 6 months postdischarge. The effect of rehabilitation was estimated by statistical comparisons of patients with rehabilitation (treatment group) and those without (reference group). Possible differential effects were investigated for the subgroup of ICU-treated sepsis survivors. The study used inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores to adjust for differences in relevant covariates. Costs for rehabilitation in the 6 months postsepsis were not included in the cost analysis. Results: Among 41,918 6-month sepsis survivors, 17.2% (n = 7,224) received rehabilitation. There was no significant difference in short-term survival between survivors with and without rehabilitation. Long-term survival rates were significantly higher in the rehabilitation group (90.4% vs. 88.7%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.1-1.3; P = 0.003). Survivors with rehabilitation had a higher mean number of hospital readmissions (7-12 months after sepsis: 0.82 vs. 0.76; P = 0.014) and were more frequently dependent on nursing care (7-12 months after sepsis: 47.8% vs. 42.3%; OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.2-1.3; P < 0.001; 13-36 months after sepsis: 52.5% vs. 47.5%; OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001) compared with those without rehabilitation, whereas total health care costs at 7-36 months after sepsis did not differ between groups. ICU-treated sepsis patients with rehabilitation had higher short- and long-term survival rates (short-term: 93.5% vs. 90.9%; OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2-1.7; P < 0.001; long-term: 89.1% vs. 86.3%; OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1-1.5; P < 0.001) than ICU-treated sepsis patients without rehabilitation. Conclusions: Rehabilitation within the first 6 months after ICU- and non-ICU-treated sepsis is associated with increased long-term survival within 3 years after sepsis without added total health care costs. Future work should aim to confirm and explain these exploratory findings.

Text-Based vs. Graphical Information Formats in Sepsis Prevention and Early Detection: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Informed Choice.

Sepsis is associated with 11 million global deaths annually. Although serious consequences of sepsis can generally be avoided with prevention and early detection, research has not yet addressed the efficacy of evidence-based health information formats for different risk groups. This study examines whether two evidence-based health information formats­text based and graphical­differ in how well they foster informed choice and risk and health literacy and in how well they support different sepsis risk groups. Based on a systematic literature review, two one-page educative formats on sepsis prevention and early detection were designed­one text based and one graphical. A sample of 500 German participants was randomly shown one of the two formats; they were then assessed on whether they made informed choices and on their risk and health literacy. For both formats, >70% of participants made informed choices for sepsis prevention and >75% for early detection. Compared with the graphical format, the text-based format was associated with higher degrees of informed choice (p = 0.012, OR = 1.818) and risk and health literacy (p = 0.032, OR = 1.710). Both formats can foster informed choices and risk and health literacy on sepsis prevention and early detection, but the text-based format appears to be more effective.

Occurrence and Risk Factors for New Dependency on Chronic Care, Respiratory Support, Dialysis and Mortality in the First Year After Sepsis.

Sepsis survival is associated with adverse outcomes. Knowledge about risk factors for adverse outcomes is lacking. We performed a population-based cohort study of 116,507 survivors of hospital-treated sepsis identified in health claims data of a German health insurance provider. We determined the development and risk factors for long-term adverse events: new dependency on chronic care, chronic dialysis, long-term respiratory support, and 12-month mortality. At-risk patients were defined by absence of these conditions prior to sepsis. Risk factors were identified using simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses. In the first year post-sepsis, 48.9% (56,957) of survivors had one or more adverse outcome, including new dependency on chronic care (31.9%), dialysis (2.8%) or respiratory support (1.6%), and death (30.7%). While pre-existing comorbidities adversely affected all studied outcomes (>4 comorbidities: OR 3.2 for chronic care, OR 4.9 for dialysis, OR 2.7 for respiratory support, OR 4.7 for 12-month mortality), increased age increased the odds for chronic care dependency and 12-month mortality, but not for dialysis or respiratory support. Hospital-acquired and multi-resistant infections were associated with increased risk of chronic care dependency, dialysis, and 12-month mortality. Multi-resistant infections also increased the odds of respiratory support. Urinary or respiratory infections or organ dysfunction increased the odds of new dialysis or respiratory support, respectively. Central nervous system infection and organ dysfunction had the highest OR for chronic care dependency among all infections and organ dysfunctions. Our results imply that patient- and infection-related factors have a differential impact on adverse life changing outcomes after sepsis. There is an urgent need for targeted interventions to reduce the risk.

The German Quality Network Sepsis: Evaluation of a Quality Collaborative on Decreasing Sepsis-Related Mortality in a Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

Background: Sepsis is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in hospitals. This study presents the evaluation of a quality collaborative, which aimed to decrease sepsis-related hospital mortality. Methods: The German Quality Network Sepsis (GQNS) offers quality reporting based on claims data, peer reviews, and support for establishing continuous quality management and staff education. This study evaluates the effects of participating in the GQNS during the intervention period (April 2016-June 2018) in comparison to a retrospective baseline (January 2014-March 2016). The primary outcome was all-cause risk-adjusted hospital mortality among cases with sepsis. Sepsis was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in claims data. A controlled time series analysis was conducted to analyze changes from the baseline to the intervention period comparing GQNS hospitals with the population of all German hospitals assessed via the national diagnosis-related groups (DRGs)-statistics. Tests were conducted using piecewise hierarchical models. Implementation processes and barriers were assessed by surveys of local leaders of quality improvement teams. Results: Seventy-four hospitals participated, of which 17 were university hospitals and 18 were tertiary care facilities. Observed mortality was 43.5% during baseline period and 42.7% during intervention period. Interrupted time-series analyses did not show effects on course or level of risk-adjusted mortality of cases with sepsis compared to the national DRG-statistics after the beginning of the intervention period (p = 0.632 and p = 0.512, respectively). There was no significant mortality decrease in the subgroups of patients with septic shock or ventilation >24 h or predefined subgroups of hospitals. A standardized survey among 49 local quality improvement leaders in autumn of 2018 revealed that most hospitals did not succeed in implementing a continuous quality management program or relevant measures to improve early recognition and treatment of sepsis. Barriers perceived most commonly were lack of time (77.6%), staff shortage (59.2%), and lack of participation of relevant departments (38.8%). Conclusion: As long as hospital-wide sepsis quality improvement efforts will not become a high priority for the hospital leadership by assuring adequate resources and involvement of all pertinent stakeholders, voluntary initiatives to improve the quality of sepsis care will remain prone to failure.

[White Paper - Improving the care of patients with impairments following sepsis and infections]. / White Paper ­ Verbesserung der Versorgungs- und Behandlungsangebote für Menschen mit Sepsis- und Infektionsfolgen.

Hundreds of thousands of individuals who experience lasting sequelae after sepsis and infections in Germany do not receive optimal care. In this White Paper we present measures for improvement, which were developed by a multidisciplinary expect panel as part of the SEPFROK project. Improved care rests on four pillars: 1. cross-sectoral assessment of sequelae and a structured discharge and transition management, 2. interdisciplinary rehabilitation and aftercare with structural support, 3. strengthening the specific health literacy of patients and families, and 4. increased research into causes, prevention and treatment of sequelae. To achieve this, appropriate cross-sectoral care structures and legal frameworks must be created.

A multifaceted educational intervention improved anti-infectious measures but had no effect on mortality in patients with severe sepsis.

Sepsis is a major reason for preventable hospital deaths. A cluster-randomized controlled trial on an educational intervention did not show improvements of sepsis management or outcome. We now aimed to test an improved implementation strategy in a second intervention phase in which new intervention hospitals (former controls) received a multifaceted educational intervention, while controls (former intervention hospitals) only received feedback of quality indicators. Changes in outcomes from the first to the second intervention phase were compared between groups using hierarchical generalized linear models controlling for possible confounders. During the two phases, 19 control hospitals included 4050 patients with sepsis and 21 intervention hospitals included 2526 patients. 28-day mortality did not show significant changes between study phases in both groups. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within one hour increased in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals. Taking at least two sets of blood cultures increased significantly in both groups. During phase 2, intervention hospitals showed higher proportion of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy and de-escalation within 5 days. A survey among involved clinicians indicated lacking resources for quality improvement. Therefore, quality improvement programs should include all elements of sepsis guidelines and provide hospitals with sufficient resources for quality improvement.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered 23 August 2010, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01187134 .

Adverse effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment and surgical source control in adults with sepsis: results of a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Timely antimicrobial treatment and source control are strongly recommended by sepsis guidelines, however, their impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial conducted from July 2011 to May 2015 including forty German hospitals. All adult patients with sepsis treated in the participating ICUs were included. Primary exposures were timing of antimicrobial therapy and delay of surgical source control during the first 48 h after sepsis onset. Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Mixed models were used to investigate the effects of timing while adjusting for confounders. The linearity of the effect was investigated by fractional polynomials and by categorizing of timing. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 4792 patients receiving antimicrobial treatment and 1595 patients undergoing surgical source control. Fractional polynomial analysis identified a linear effect of timing of antimicrobials on 28-day mortality, which increased by 0.42% per hour delay (OR with 95% CI 1.019 [1.01, 1.028], p ≤ 0.001). This effect was significant in patients with and without shock (OR = 1.018 [1.008, 1.029] and 1.026 [1.01, 1.043], respectively). Using a categorized timing variable, there were no significant differences comparing treatment within 1 h versus 1-3 h, or 1 h versus 3-6 h. Delays of more than 6 h significantly increased mortality (OR = 1.41 [1.17, 1.69]). Delay in antimicrobials also increased risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock (OR per hour: 1.051 [1.022, 1.081], p ≤ 0.001). Time to surgical source control was significantly associated with decreased odds of successful source control (OR = 0.982 [0.971, 0.994], p = 0.003) and increased odds of death (OR = 1.011 [1.001, 1.021]; p = 0.03) in unadjusted analysis, but not when adjusted for confounders (OR = 0.991 [0.978, 1.005] and OR = 1.008 [0.997, 1.02], respectively). Only, among patients with septic shock delay of source control was significantly related to risk-of death (adjusted OR = 1.013 [1.001, 1.026], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that management of sepsis is time critical both for antimicrobial therapy and source control. Also patients, who are not yet in septic shock, profit from early anti-infective treatment since it can prevent further deterioration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01187134 ). Registered 23 August 2010, NCT01187134.

Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Sepsis Survivors in Germany-Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Survivors of sepsis often face long-term sequelae after intensive care treatment. Compared to the period of hospitalization, little is known about the ambulatory healthcare utilization in sepsis patients. The study evaluated healthcare utilization and associated costs of sepsis care including allied health professions after initial hospitalization. Methods: Secondary analysis was performed on data in 210 sepsis patients prospectively enrolled from nine intensive care study centers across Germany. Data was collected via structured surveys among their Primary care (Family-) physicians (PCPs) within the first month after discharge from ICU (baseline) and again at 6, 12 and 24 months after discharge, each relating to the period following the last survey. Costs were assessed by standardized cost unit rates from a health care system's perspective. Changes in healthcare utilization and costs over time were calculated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Of the 210 patients enrolled, 146 (69.5%) patients completed the 24 months follow-up. In total, 109 patients were hospitalized within the first 6 months post-intensive care. Mean total direct costs per patient at 0-6 months were €17,531 (median: €6047), at 7-12 months €9029 (median: €3312), and at 13-24 months €18,703 (median: €12,828). The largest contributor to the total direct costs within the first 6 months was re-hospitalizations (€13,787 (median: €2965). After this first half year, we observed a significant decline in inpatient care costs for re-hospitalizations (p ≤ 0.001). PCPs were visited by more than 95% of patients over 24 months. Conclusions: Sepsis survivors have high health care utilization. Hospital readmissions are frequent and costly. Highest costs and hospitalizations were observed in more than half of patients within the first six months post-intensive care. Among all outpatient care providers, PCPs were consulted most frequently. Clinical impact: Sepsis survivors have a high healthcare utilization and related costs which persist after discharge from hospital. Within outpatient care, possible needs of sepsis survivors as physiotherapy or psychotherapy seem not to be met appropriately. Development of sepsis aftercare programs for early detection and treatment of complications should be prioritized.