Continuation of chronic antiplatelet therapy is not associated with increased need for transfusions: a cohort study in critically ill septic patients.

BACKGROUND: The decision to maintain or halt antiplatelet medication in septic patients admitted to intensive care units presents a clinical dilemma. This is due to the necessity to balance the benefits of preventing thromboembolic incidents and leveraging anti-inflammatory properties against the increased risk of bleeding. METHODS: This study involves a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study focusing on patients diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock. We evaluated the outcomes of 203 patients, examining mortality rates and the requirement for transfusion. The cohort was divided into two groups: those whose antiplatelet therapy was sustained (n = 114) and those in whom it was discontinued (n = 89). To account for potential biases such as indication for antiplatelet therapy, propensity score matching was employed. RESULTS: Therapy continuation did not significantly alter transfusion requirements (discontinued vs. continued in matched samples: red blood cell concentrates 51.7% vs. 68.3%, p = 0.09; platelet concentrates 21.7% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.82; fresh frozen plasma concentrates 38.3% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.7). 90-day survival was higher within the continued group (30.0% vs. 70.0%; p < 0.001) and the Log-rank test (7-day survivors; p = 0.001) as well as Cox regression (both matched samples) suggested an association between continuation of antiplatelet therapy < 7 days and survival (HR: 0.24, 95%-CI 0.10 to 0.63, p = 0.004). Sepsis severity expressed by the SOFA score did not differ significantly in matched and unmatched patients (both p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that continuing antiplatelet therapy in septic patients admitted to intensive care units could be associated with a significant survival benefit without substantially increasing the need for transfusion. These results highlight the importance of a nuanced approach to managing antiplatelet medication in the context of severe sepsis and septic shock.

Epirubicin for the Treatment of Sepsis and Septic Shock (EPOS-1): study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled phase IIa dose-escalation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis remains the major cause of death among hospitalised patients in intensive care. While targeting sepsis-causing pathogens with source control or antimicrobials has had a dramatic impact on morbidity and mortality of sepsis patients, this strategy remains insufficient for about one-third of the affected individuals who succumb. Pharmacological targeting of mechanisms that reduce sepsis-defining organ dysfunction may be beneficial. When given at low doses, the anthracycline epirubicin promotes tissue damage control and lessens the severity of sepsis independently of the host-pathogen load by conferring disease tolerance to infection. Since epirubicin at higher doses can be myelotoxic, a first dose-response trial is necessary to assess the potential harm of this drug in this new indication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Epirubicin for the Treatment of Sepsis and Septic Shock-1 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 dose-escalation phase IIa clinical trial to assess the safety of epirubicin as an adjunctive in patients with sepsis. The primary endpoint is the 14-day myelotoxicity. Secondary and explorative outcomes include 30-day and 90-day mortality, organ dysfunction, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and cytokine release. Patients will be randomised in three consecutive phases. For each study phase, patients are randomised to one of the two study arms (epirubicin or placebo) in a 4:1 ratio. Approximately 45 patients will be recruited. Patients in the epirubicin group will receive a single dose of epirubicin (3.75, 7.5 or 15 mg/m2 depending on the study phase. After each study phase, a data and safety monitoring board will recommend continuation or premature stopping of the trial. The primary analyses for each dose level will report the proportion of myelotoxicity together with a 95% CI. A potential dose-toxicity association will be analysed using a logistic regression model with dose as a covariate. All further analyses will be descriptive. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05033808.

Applying Machine Learning to Blood Count Data Predicts Sepsis with ICU Admission.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis is crucial for sepsis treatment. Current machine learning (ML) models suffer from high complexity and limited applicability. We therefore created an ML model using only complete blood count (CBC) diagnostics. METHODS: We collected non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) data from a German tertiary care centre (January 2014 to December 2021). Using patient age, sex, and CBC parameters (haemoglobin, platelets, mean corpuscular volume, white and red blood cells), we trained a boosted random forest, which predicts sepsis with ICU admission. Two external validations were conducted using data from another German tertiary care centre and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database (MIMIC-IV). Using the subset of laboratory orders also including procalcitonin (PCT), an analogous model was trained with PCT as an additional feature. RESULTS: After exclusion, 1 381 358 laboratory requests (2016 from sepsis cases) were available. The CBC model shows an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.872 (95% CI, 0.857-0.887). External validations show AUROCs of 0.805 (95% CI, 0.787-0.824) for University Medicine Greifswald and 0.845 (95% CI, 0.837-0.852) for MIMIC-IV. The model including PCT revealed a significantly higher AUROC (0.857; 95% CI, 0.836-0.877) than PCT alone (0.790; 95% CI, 0.759-0.821; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that routine CBC results could significantly improve diagnosis of sepsis when combined with ML. The CBC model can facilitate early sepsis prediction in non-ICU patients with high robustness in external validations. Its implementation in clinical decision support systems has strong potential to provide an essential time advantage and increase patient safety.

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.

[Preclinical early detection and diagnosis of sepsis - step by step]. / Präklinische Früherkennung und Diagnostik der Sepsis ­ Schritt für Schritt.

Because of very unspecific sepsis symptoms, early recognition of the emergency sepsis is difficult. If the disease is recognized in time it is possible to initiate diagnosis and treatment quickly. Rapid treatment of sepsis leads to lower mortality and less severe long-term consequences. Early detection is therefore of central importance in the diagnostic and therapeutic process, also in the outpatient setting.

(1 → 3)-ß-D-Glucan-guided antifungal therapy in adults with sepsis: the CandiSep randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether (1 → 3)-ß-d-Glucan (BDG)-guidance shortens time to antifungal therapy and thereby reduces mortality of sepsis patients with high risk of invasive Candida infection (ICI). METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial carried out between September 2016 and September 2019 in 18 intensive care units enrolling adult sepsis patients at high risk for ICI. Patients in the control group received targeted antifungal therapy driven by culture results. In addition to targeted therapy, patients in the BDG group received antifungals if at least one of two consecutive BDG samples taken during the first two study days was ≥ 80 pg/mL. Empirical antifungal therapy was discouraged in both groups. The primary endpoint was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: 339 patients were enrolled. ICI was diagnosed in 48 patients (14.2%) within the first 96 h after enrollment. In the BDG-group, 48.8% (84/172) patients received antifungals during the first 96 h after enrollment and 6% (10/167) patients in the control group. Death until day 28 occurred in 58 of 172 patients (33.7%) in the BDG group and 51 of 167 patients (30.5%) in the control group (relative risk 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.51; p = 0.53). Median time to antifungal therapy was 1.1 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.0-2.2] days in the BDG group and 4.4 (IQR 2.0-9.1, p < 0.01) days in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Serum BDG guided antifungal treatment did not improve 28-day mortality among sepsis patients with risk factors for but unexpected low rate of IC. This study cannot comment on the potential benefit of BDG-guidance in a more selected at-risk population.

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.

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 .

Efficacy and Safety of Vilobelimab (IFX-1), a Novel Monoclonal Anti-C5a Antibody, in Patients With Early Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock-A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase IIa Trial (SCIENS Study).

Anaphylatoxin C5a, a proinflammatory complement split product, plays a central role in mediating organ dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: This phase II clinical trial was conducted to study safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vilobelimab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody against C5a, in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, and placebo-controlled study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eleven multidisciplinary ICUs across Germany. Adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and with early onset of infection-associated organ dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:1 to three subsequent dosing cohorts for IV vilobelimab or placebo receiving either 2 × 2 mg/kg (0 and 12 hr), 2 × 4 mg/kg (0 and 24 hr), and 3 × 4 mg/kg (0, 24, and 72 hr). Co-primary endpoints were pharmacodynamics (assessed by C5a concentrations), pharmacokinetics (assessed by vilobelimab concentrations), and safety of vilobelimab. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated by secondary objectives. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were randomized (16 patients for each vilobelimab dosing cohort and eight patients for each placebo dosing cohort). Vilobelimab application was associated with dosing dependent decrease in C5a compared with baseline (p < 0.001). Duration of C5a decrease increased with more frequent dosing. Membrane attack complex lysis capacity measured by 50% hemolytic complement was not affected. Vilobelimab was well tolerated with similar safety findings in all dose cohorts. No vilobelimab-specific adverse events emerged. For vilobelimab-treated patients, investigators attributed less treatment-emergent adverse events as related compared with placebo. Dosing cohorts 2 and 3 had the highest ICU-free and ventilator-free days. There was no difference in mortality, vasopressor-free days, or renal replacement therapy-free days between the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of vilobelimab in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock selectively neutralizes C5a in a dose-dependent manner without blocking formation of the membrane attack complex and without resulting in detected safety issues. The data warrant further investigation of C5a inhibition in sepsis.

Validation study of German inpatient administrative health data for epidemiological surveillance and measurement of quality of care for sepsis: the OPTIMISE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a major cause of preventable deaths in hospitals. This study aims to investigate if sepsis incidence and quality of care can be assessed using inpatient administrative health data (IAHD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: Retrospective observational validation study using routine data to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sepsis coding in IAHD regarding sepsis diagnosis based on medical record review. PROCEDURE: A stratified sample of 10 000 patients with an age ≥15 years treated in between 2015 and 2017 in 10 German hospitals is investigated. All available information of medical records is screened by trained physicians to identify true sepsis cases ('gold standard') both according to current ('sepsis-1') definitions and new ('sepsis-3') definitions. Data from medical records are linked to IAHD on patient level using a pseudonym. ANALYSES: Proportions of cases with sepsis according to sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 definitions are calculated and compared with estimates from coding of sepsis in IAHD. Predictive accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) of different coding abstraction strategies regarding the gold standard is estimated. Predictive accuracy of mortality risk factors obtained from IAHD regarding the respective risk factors obtained from medical records is calculated. An IAHD-based risk model for hospital mortality is compared with a record-based risk model regarding model-fit and predicted risk of death. Analyses adjust for sampling weights. The obtained estimates of sensitivity and specificity for sepsis coding in IAHD are used to estimate adjusted incidence proportions of sepsis based on German national IAHD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics commission of the Jena University Hospital (No. 2018-1065-Daten). The results of the study will be discussed in an expert panel to write a memorandum on improving the utility of IAHD for epidemiological surveillance and quality management of sepsis care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00017775; Pre-results.

Local Intra-arterial Vasodilator Infusion in Non-Occlusive Mesenteric Ischemia Significantly Increases Survival Rate.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcome of local intra-arterial papaverine infusion therapy in patients with non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI), and factors influencing survival, in comparison with a conservative approach. METHODS: From 2013 to 2019, patients with NOMI confirmed by imaging were included in a retrospective two-center study. According to different in-house standard procedures, patients were treated in each center either conservatively or interventionally by a standardized local infusion of intra-arterial papaverine into the splanchnic arteries. Thirty-day mortality and factors influencing the outcome, such as different demographics and laboratories, were compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients with NOMI were included, with n = 35 treated interventionally (21 males, mean age 67.7 ± 12.3 years) and n = 31 treated conservatively (18 females, mean age 71.6 ± 9.6 years). There was a significant difference in 30-day mortality between the interventional (65.7%; 12/35 survived) and the conservative group (96.8%; 1/31 survived) (hazard ratio 2.44; P = 0.005). Thresholds associated with a worse outcome of interventional therapy are > 7.68 mmol/l for lactate, < 7.31 for pH and < - 4.55 for base excess. CONCLUSION: Local intra-arterial papaverine infusion therapy in patients with NOMI significantly increases survival rate in comparison with conservative treatment. High lactate levels, low pH and high base excess, and high demand for catecholamines are associated with a poor outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Ethical aspects of time in intensive care decision making.

The decision-making environment in intensive care units (ICUs) is influenced by the transformation of intensive care medicine, the staffing situation and the increasing importance of patient autonomy. Normative implications of time in intensive care, which affect all three areas, have so far barely been considered. The study explores patterns of decision making concerning the continuation, withdrawal and withholding of therapies in intensive care. A triangulation of qualitative data collection methods was chosen. Data were collected through non-participant observation on a surgical ICU at an academic medical centre followed by semi-structured interviews with nurses and physicians. The transcribed interviews and observation notes were coded and analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Three themes related to time emerged regarding the escalation or de-escalation of therapies: influence of time on prognosis, time as a scarce resource and timing in regards to decision making. The study also reveals the ambivalence of time as a norm for decision making. The challenge of dealing with time-related efforts in ICU care results from the tension between the need to wait to optimise patient care, which must be balanced against the significant time pressure which is characteristic of the ICU setting.

On-site blood culture incubation shortens the time to knowledge of positivity and microbiological results in septic patients.

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether on-site incubation of blood cultures at the intensive care unit (ICU) improves not only the time to incubation but also time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to results (identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing). METHODS: This observational single-centre study in ICU patients with severe sepsis and septic shock investigated the impact of blood culture incubation immediately on-site at the ICU (ICU group) by comparison with traditional processing in a remote laboratory (LAB group) on different time intervals of blood culture diagnostics from obtaining blood to clinician notification of final result. The effect of on-site incubation was evaluated in Kaplan-Meier estimates for the time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to microbiological results and a linear mixed model was built. RESULTS: A total of 3,549 blood culture sets from 657 ICU patients were analysed: 2,381 in the LAB group and 1,168 in the ICU group. Overall, 660 (18.6%) blood culture sets were positive and 2,889 (81.4%) sets remained negative. On-site incubation was associated with reduced time to knowledge of positivity (46.9 h [CI 43.4-50.8 h] vs. 28.0 h [CI 23.6-32.2 h], p < 0.001) and reduced time to result (61.4 h [CI 58.4-64.8 h] vs. 42.1 h [CI 39.1-47.5 h], p < 0.001). In blood cultures processed instantaneously at the ICU compared to incubation in the remote laboratory within 4 h, the time to microbiological result was significantly reduced by 8.5 h (p < 0.001). Pre-existing anti-infective therapy had no significant impact on diagnostic time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Instantaneous incubation of blood cultures in the ICU compared to incubation in a remote laboratory significantly improves time to knowledge to positivity and time to result. These effects are even more pronounced during off-hours of the microbiological laboratory. The results underline the importance of 24/7 diagnostics to provide round-the-clock processing of blood culture samples in patients with sepsis and septic shock and an immediate to communication of the results to the clinicians.

The association of intensive care with utilization and costs of outpatient healthcare services and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about outpatient health services use following critical illness and intensive care. We examined the association of intensive care with outpatient consultations and quality of life in a population-based sample. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from 6,686 participants of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), which consists of two independent population-based cohorts. Statistical modeling was done using Poisson regression, negative binomial and generalized linear models for consultations, and a fractional response model for quality of life (EQ-5D-3L index value), with results expressed as prevalence ratios (PR) or percent change (PC). Entropy balancing was used to adjust for observed confounding. RESULTS: ICU treatment in the previous year was reported by 139 of 6,686 (2,1%) participants, and was associated with a higher probability (PR 1.05 [CI:1.03;1.07]), number (PC +58.0% [CI:22.8;103.2]) and costs (PC +64.1% [CI:32.0;103.9]) of annual outpatient consultations, as well as with a higher number of medications (PC +37.8% [CI:17.7;61.5]). Participants with ICU treatment were more likely to visit a specialist (PR 1.13 [CI:1.09; 1.16]), specifically internal medicine (PR 1.67 [CI:1.45;1.92]), surgery (PR 2.42 [CI:1.92;3.05]), psychiatry (PR 2.25 [CI:1.30;3.90]), and orthopedics (PR 1.54 [CI:1.11;2.14]). There was no significant effect regarding general practitioner consultations. ICU treatment was also associated with lower health-related quality of life (EQ-5D index value: PC -13.7% [CI:-27.0;-0.3]). Furthermore, quality of life was inversely associated with outpatient consultations in the previous month, more so for participants with ICU treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ICU treatment is associated with an increased utilization of outpatient specialist services, higher medication intake, and impaired quality of life.

Do Sepsis-3 Criteria Facilitate Earlier Recognition of Sepsis and Septic Shock? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: New Sepsis-3 criteria are supposed to "facilitate earlier recognition … of patients with sepsis." To test this, we performed novel and direct comparisons of Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria with respect to time differences of sepsis onset. METHODS: In a cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients prospectively diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock according to Sepsis-1 criteria between 01/2010 and 12/2015, the time differences between meeting Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria as time of sepsis onset and the corresponding differences in illness severity were tested. Similar comparisons were performed for septic shock subset meeting different Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria. Patients with non-ICU-acquired sepsis and patients with sepsis onset more than 48 h postadmission (ICU-acquired sepsis) were analyzed separately to account for differences in availability of routinely collected organ dysfunction data. RESULTS: A total of 10,905 ICU patients were screened; 862 patients met Sepsis-1 criteria, of whom 834 (97%) also met Sepsis-3 criteria. In patients, admitted to the ICU with sepsis, Sepsis-3 criteria compared with Sepsis-1 criteria were more frequently fulfilled within the first 3 h (84% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).In patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, sepsis onset was in 50% at least 1 day earlier after application of Sepsis-3 (P = 0.011). These patients were systemic inflammatory response syndrome negative at the earlier sepsis onset, but suffered already from organ dysfunction. Sepsis-3 criteria were timely in 86% and 1 day delayed in 7%. Only 7% (8 patients) did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria in this group. These patients had already an increased SOFA score and did develop neither a further increase nor the new septic shock criteria. Classification according to Sepsis-3 reduced the proportion of septic shock (51% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).Twenty-eight-day mortality was 38% for new septic shock compared with 33% of Sepsis-1 septic shock (P > 0.05). Patients not detected by Sepsis-3 had a 28-day mortality of 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis-3 criteria facilitate an earlier and more predictive recognition of sepsis and septic shock in patients with non-ICU and ICU-acquired sepsis primarily diagnosed by Sepsis-1 criteria. These results require further validation with prospectively collected data.

The German Quality Network Sepsis: study protocol for the evaluation of a quality collaborative on decreasing sepsis-related mortality in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design.

BACKGROUND: While sepsis-related mortality decreased substantially in other developed countries, mortality of severe sepsis remained as high as 44% in Germany. A recent German cluster randomized trial was not able to improve guideline adherence and decrease sepsis-related mortality within the participating hospitals, partly based on lacking support by hospital management and lacking resources for documentation of prospective data. Thus, more pragmatic approaches are needed to improve quality of sepsis care in Germany. The primary objective of the study is to decrease sepsis-related hospital mortality within a quality collaborative relying on claims data. METHOD: The German Quality Network Sepsis (GQNS) is a quality collaborative involving 75 hospitals. This study protocol describes the conduction and evaluation of the start-up period of the GQNS running from March 2016 to August 2018. Democratic structures assure participatory action, a study coordination bureau provides central support and resources, and local interdisciplinary quality improvement teams implement changes within the participating hospitals. Quarterly quality reports focusing on risk-adjusted hospital mortality in cases with sepsis based on claims data are provided. Hospitals committed to publish their individual risk-adjusted mortality compared to the German average. A complex risk-model is used to control for differences in patient-related risk factors. Hospitals are encouraged to implement a bundle of interventions, e.g., interdisciplinary case analyses, external peer-reviews, hospital-wide staff education, and implementation of rapid response teams. The effectiveness of the GQNS is evaluated in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design by comparing the change of hospital mortality of cases with sepsis with organ dysfunction from a retrospective baseline period (January 2014 to December 2015) and the intervention period (April 2016 to March 2018) between the participating hospitals and all other German hospitals. Structural and process quality indicators of sepsis care as well as efforts for quality improvement are monitored regularly. DISCUSSION: The GQNS is a large-scale quality collaborative using a pragmatic approach based on claims data. A complex risk-adjustment model allows valid quality comparisons between hospitals and with the German average. If this study finds the approach to be useful for improving quality of sepsis care, it may also be applied to other diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02820675.

Effect of a multifaceted educational intervention for anti-infectious measures on sepsis mortality: a cluster randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend administering antibiotics within 1 h of sepsis recognition but this recommendation remains untested by randomized trials. This trial was set up to investigate whether survival is improved by reducing the time before initiation of antimicrobial therapy by means of a multifaceted intervention in compliance with guideline recommendations. METHODS: The MEDUSA study, a prospective multicenter cluster-randomized trial, was conducted from July 2011 to July 2013 in 40 German hospitals. Hospitals were randomly allocated to receive conventional continuous medical education (CME) measures (control group) or multifaceted interventions including local quality improvement teams, educational outreach, audit, feedback, and reminders. We included 4183 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the multifaceted intervention (n = 2596) with conventional CME (n = 1587). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality was 35.1% (883 of 2596 patients) in the intervention group and 26.7% (403 of 1587 patients; p = 0.01) in the control group. The intervention was not a risk factor for mortality, since this difference was present from the beginning of the study and remained unaffected by the intervention. Median time to antimicrobial therapy was 1.5 h (interquartile range 0.1-4.9 h) in the intervention group and 2.0 h (0.4-5.9 h; p = 0.41) in the control group. The risk of death increased by 2% per hour delay of antimicrobial therapy and 1% per hour delay of source control, independent of group assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Delay in antimicrobial therapy and source control was associated with increased mortality but the multifaceted approach was unable to change time to antimicrobial therapy in this setting and did not affect survival.