Ambulance patients with nondocumented sepsis have a high mortality risk: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is a serious disease leading to high mortality. Early recognition is important because treatment is most effective when started quickly.The primary aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess how many sepsis patients are documented as septic by ambulance staff. The secondary aims were to investigate how many sepsis patients are transported by ambulance, to compare them with patients transported otherwise, to investigate which factors influence documentation of sepsis and to assess whether documentation influences mortality. METHODS: We retrieved all data from ambulance and emergency department charts of patients who visited the internist in the emergency department from March 2011 to July 2012. RESULTS: In total, 47.4% (n=363) sepsis patients were transported by ambulance. These patients were older (71.5 vs. 55.7 years, P<0.0001), admitted more frequently (97.2 vs. 85.4%, P<0.001), significantly more frequently had severe sepsis (47.4 vs. 25.8%, P<0.0001) or septic shock (12.4 vs. 4.0%, P<0.0001), and died more frequently within 28 days (17.9 vs. 7.2%, P<0.0001) than those who were transported otherwise.In 41.9% of ambulance patients, sepsis was not documented by ambulance staff. Measurement of temperature was important for documentation of sepsis (odds ratio 11.2, 95% confidence interval 5.2-24.4). In 32.1% of ambulance patients, sepsis could have been identified by assessing vital signs. Mortality in these nondocumented patients was higher than that in documented patients (25.7 vs. 12.9%, P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Ambulance patients are seriously ill, but sepsis is often not documented by ambulance staff. Nondocumentation is associated with high mortality and could be resolved by assessing vital signs, particularly the temperature.

Risk stratification by abbMEDS and CURB-65 in relation to treatment and clinical disposition of the septic patient at the emergency department: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis leads to high mortality, therefore risk stratification is important. The abbMEDS (abbreviated Mortality Emergency Department Sepsis) score assesses sepsis severity and predicts mortality. In community-acquired pneumonia, the CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea, Respiration, Blood pressure, Age) also provides support in clinical decisions regarding antibiotic treatment and clinical disposition. We investigated the predictive value and feasibility of the abbMEDS and CURB-65 in sepsis patients at the ED and the relationship between the scores and antibiotic treatment and clinical disposition (i.e. admission and type of ward). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 725 sepsis patients at the ED. We investigated the value in predicting 28-day mortality and feasibility of both scores. We calibrated the abbMEDS. We further assessed the relationship between the three risk categories per score and antibiotic treatment (i.e. oral and intravenous narrow or broad-spectrum) and clinical disposition. RESULTS: Both abbMEDS and CURB-65 were good predictors of 28-day mortality (13.0%) (AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.72 - 0.83] and 0.73 [95% CI 0.67 - 0.78], respectively) and feasible (complete score 92.7 and 93.9%, respectively). In the high risk category of the abbMEDS, all patients were admitted and treated with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. In the high risk category of the CURB-65, 2.5% were not admitted and 4.4% received no antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Both abbMEDS and CURB-65 are good predictors of 28-day mortality in septic ED patients. The abbMEDS is well calibrated and matches current clinical decisions concerning antibiotic treatment and clinical disposition, while this is less so for the CURB-65. In the future, use of the abbMEDS at the ED may improve sepsis care when its value as a decision support tool can be confirmed.

Predictive accuracy and feasibility of risk stratification scores for 28-day mortality of patients with sepsis in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is associated with high mortality. Because early therapy has proven to decrease mortality, a risk stratification tool that quickly and easily quantifies mortality risk of patients will be helpful to guide appropriate treatment. We investigated five scores in terms of (a) predicting 28-day mortality and (b) their feasibility for use in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a historical cohort study in the ED of Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC). Patients who fulfilled the criteria for sepsis were included if they had been admitted to the hospital by an internist between August 2009 and August 2010. The Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), Confusion, Urea, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, age>65 (CURB-65), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) scores were calculated using ED charts. The primary outcome was total 28-day mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots were constructed to evaluate predictive accuracy. Feasibility was defined as the proportion of patients for whom all data were available. RESULTS: We included 600 patients, of whom 90 (15%) died within 28 days. Discriminating ability for total 28-day mortality of the MEDS [area under the curve (AUC): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.87], CURB-65 (AUC: 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and APACHE II (AUC: 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79) was the highest, but only the difference between the MEDS and REMS (P=0.007) and the RAPS score (P<0.001) was significant. Both the MEDS and the CURB-65 had higher AUCs for predicting 28-day in-hospital mortality than the other three scores, but this was only significant for the MEDS score compared with the RAPS (P=0.003). Both the MEDS and the CURB-65 underestimated mortality, especially for the higher scores. The MEDS, CURB-65, REMS, and RAPS were most feasible as they could be calculated in more than 96% of patients. CONCLUSION: The MEDS and CURB-65 scores are the most adequate and feasible tools for the prediction of total 28-day mortality in septic patients presenting at the ED, but they need local recalibration before use in the ED.

Septic patients arriving with emergency medical services: a seriously ill population.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is a serious condition with high mortality. Early treatment improves outcome and can be initiated by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel.The primary aim of our study was to investigate how many sepsis patients are transported by EMS to the internist at the emergency department (ED). The secondary aims were to compare these EMS patients with patients who arrived at the ED otherwise and to investigate how these patients were managed. We further investigated how often the diagnosis sepsis/infection was documented by EMS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved all ED and EMS data of patients with sepsis who were assessed by the internist between March 2011 and March 2012. RESULTS: Half (48.0%) of 654 sepsis patients were transported by EMS. These patients were more seriously ill (more severe grades of sepsis, more admittances to the hospital/ICU) than patients who were transported otherwise. Mortality within 28 days was 19.4% compared with 6.5% in the other patients. Nevertheless, half of the EMS transports were considered not urgent, even in 34.6% of the patients with septic shock. Assessment of vital signs was not routinely performed and treatment was started in only 43.6%. The diagnosis sepsis/infection was documented in 63.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: Half of the patients with sepsis arrive at the ED by EMS. These patients are seriously ill, and although these patients are likely to benefit from early treatment, they are often transported with nonurgent rides and both assessment of vital signs and early start of treatment are not routinely performed.

Determinants of outcome in non-septic critically ill patients with acute kidney injury on continuous venovenous hemofiltration.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In view of ongoing controversy, we wished to study whether patient characteristics and/or continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) characteristics contribute to the outcome of non-septic critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We retrospectively studied 102 consecutive patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with non-septic AKI needing CVVH. Patient and CVVH characteristics were evaluated. Primary outcome was mortality up to day 28 after CVVH initiation. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (43%) died during the 28-day period after the start of CVVH. In univariate analyses, non-survivors had more often a cardiovascular reason for ICU admission, greater disease acuity/severity and organ failure, lower initial creatinine levels, less use of heparin and more use of bicarbonate-based substitution fluid. The latter two can be attributed to high lactate levels and bleeding tendency in non-survivors necessitating withholding lactate-buffered fluid and heparin, respectively, according to our clinical protocol. In multivariate analyses, mortality was predicted by disease severity, use of bicarbonate-based fluids and lack of heparin, while initial creatinine and CVVH dose did not contribute. CONCLUSION: The outcome of non-septic AKI in need of CVVH is more likely to be determined by underlying or concurrent, acute and severe disease rather than by CVVH characteristics, including timing and dose.