Blood lactate measurement within the emergency department: A two-year retrospective analysis.

We evaluate in this retrospective cohort, the clinical situations leading emergency physicians to take a blood lactate sample, the prevalence of hyperlactatemia and its impact on short-term adverse outcome. ED patients requiring a blood lactate measurement (BLM) during a two-year period were included. Early patients' outcomes were extracted and discharge diagnoses were classified into 12 diagnostic categories. A total of 118,737 patients were analyzed. A BLM was carried out in 13,089 of them. Surprisingly, the proportion of patients having a BLM was higher in those admitted for seizure (31.4%) than in those admitted for infection (27.9%). Ten percent of patients who had a blood lactate test had a lactate level >4 mmol/l (1,315). Among them, 23.2% were admitted for infections, 20% for seizures, and 11% for cardiovascular diseases. After excluding the patients older than 75 years from the analysis in order to prevent a selection bias, the patient's severity was independently associated to an age over 65 years (OR: 1.26), an arterial blood sampling (OR: 2.77) and the blood lactate level (OR: 1.31). The blood lactate level was very informative to detect the sicker patients in the infection group whereas its interest was poor in the group of patients admitted for seizures. In conclusion, blood lactate testing has become routine in emergency departments and a large proportion of patients have abnormal blood lactate levels. The most frequent causes of high blood lactate in the ED are infection and seizures but the prognostic value of blood lactate seems to be different from one diagnostic category to the other.

Long-Term ß-Blocker Therapy Decreases Blood Lactate Concentration in Severely Septic Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Measurement of blood lactate concentration in the early management of sepsis is an important step in severity assessment. High blood lactate levels in the early phase of sepsis have classically been thought to be related to tissue hypoxia, but other factors could intervene. We hypothesized that the activation of glycolysis through ß-adrenergic stimulation by endogenous catecholamines plays an important role in lactate production and that long-term ß-blocker therapy could affect the lactate concentration in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department. PATIENTS: Two hundred sixty patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were included. Twenty-five percent were previously treated with ß-blockers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recorded initial vital signs, the source of infection, mortality at 28 days, blood lactate concentration, and Predisposition Insult Response of Organ failure and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores using an electronic database. Blood lactate concentration was significantly lower in patients previously treated with ß-blockers (3.9 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 5.6 ± 3.6 mmol/L; p < 0.001). This difference was still significant after controlling for mortality (p < 0.005), for the level of the Predisposition Insult Response of Organ failure (p < 0.05) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (p < 0.05) scores, and for the source of infection (p < 0.05). Nearly four times more patients treated with ß-blockers had normal blood lactate levels (p< 0.001). Only two factors were significantly and independently associated with normal blood lactate concentration during severe sepsis and septic shock: survival (p = 0.03) and ß-blocker therapy (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term ß-blocker therapy decreases blood lactate concentration of severely ill septic patients at presentation. We conclude that the use of blood lactate measurement as a triage tool in the initial assessment of septic patients with ß-blocker therapy may underestimate the severity of the sepsis.

Effectiveness of arterial, venous, and capillary blood lactate as a sepsis triage tool in ED patients.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the capacity of arterial (ABL), peripheral venous (VBL), and capillary (CBL) blood lactate concentration to early detect the presence of severe sepsis in patients admitted to the emergency department for a septic syndrome. METHODS: Patients with signs of sepsis presenting to the emergency department were prospectively enrolled. Blood lactate was measured using a handheld point-of-care analyzer on microsamples of arterial, peripheral venous, and capillary blood. An arterial blood sample was dispatched to the central laboratory as a reference measurement. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled in the study, with 63 patients presenting with a severe sepsis. There was a strong correlation between the point of care and the reference blood lactate measurement. The CBL, VBL, and ABL were all significantly different (3.01±0.29, 2.51±0.21, and 2.03±0.18 mmol/L, respectively; P<.001). The VBL value was the most efficient to detect early the presence of severe sepsis (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.85±0.04, 0.76±0.05, and 0.75±0.05 for VBL, ABL, and CBL, respectively; P<.01). Mortality at 28 days was related to the severity of sepsis (28.6% vs 7.5%) and to the number or organ dysfunctions (P<.01). Arterial blood lactate, VBL, and CBL were all significantly associated with the 28th-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Initial VBL may be used efficiently to assess the severity of sepsis, and it could even be more effective than ABL and CBL to early detect the presence of severe sepsis.

Improving the validity of peripheral venous blood gas analysis as an estimate of arterial blood gas by correcting the venous values with SvO2.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous blood gas (pVBG) analysis in replacement of arterial blood gas (ABG) is limited by the unpredictable differences between arterial and venous values, especially for PCO2 and pH (ΔPCO2 and ΔpH). OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that, using the theoretical relationship linking SvO2 and blood flow, we could diminish the effect of local circulatory conditions on ΔPCO2 and ΔpH and thereby increase pVBG validity. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional study performed in emergency patients requiring a blood gas analysis in which ABG and pVBG were performed simultaneously. The data of 50 randomly selected patients (model group) were used for developing two equations to correct PvCO2 and pHv according to the peripheral SvO2 (SpvO2) level. The formulas derived were PvCO2cor = PvCO2 - 0.30 × (75 - SpvO2), and pHvcor = pHv + 0.001 × (75 - SpvO2). The validity of the corrected values was then tested on the remaining population (validation group). RESULTS: There were 281 patients included in the study, mainly for dyspnea. ΔPCO2 and ΔpH were strongly correlated with SpvO2 (r(2) = 0.62 and r(2) = 0.53, respectively, p < 0.001). Using the data of the model group, we developed equations that we applied on the validation group. We found that the corrected values were more valid than the raw values for detecting a PaCO2 > 45 mm Hg (AUC ROC = 0.96 ± 0.01 vs. 0.89 ± 0.02, p < 0.001), a PaCO2 < 35 mm Hg (AUC = 0.95 ± 0.02 vs. 0.84 ± 0.03, p < 0.001), a pHa < 7.35 (AUC = 0.97 ± 0.01 vs. 0.95 ± 0.02, p < 0.05), or a pHa > 7.45 (AUC = 0.91 ± 0.02 vs. 0.81 ± 0.04, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The variability of ΔPCO2 and ΔpH is significantly lowered when the venous values are corrected according to the SpvO2 value, and pVBG is therefore more accurate and valid for detecting an arterial abnormality.

High Prevalence of Acquired Thrombophilia Without Prognosis Value in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background Recent literature reports a strong thrombotic tendency in patients hospitalized for a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. This characteristic is unusual and seems specific to COVID-19 infections, especially in their severe form. Viral infections can trigger acquired thrombophilia, which can then lead to thrombotic complications. We investigate for the presence of acquired thrombophilia, which could participate in this phenomenon, and report its prevalence. We also wonder if these thrombophilias participate in the bad prognosis of severe COVID-19 infections. Methods and Results In 89 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, we found a 20% prevalence of PS (protein S) deficiency and a high (ie, 72%) prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies: mainly lupus anticoagulant. The presence of PS deficiency or antiphospholipid antibodies was not linked with a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time nor with D-dimer, fibrinogen, or CRP (C-reactive protein) concentrations. These coagulation abnormalities are also not linked with thrombotic clinical events occurring during hospitalization nor with mortality. Conclusions We assess a high prevalence of positive tests detecting thrombophilia in COVID-19 infections. However, in our series, these acquired thrombophilias are not correlated with the severity of the disease nor with the occurrence of thrombotic events. Albeit the strong thrombotic tendency in COVID-19 infections, the presence of frequent acquired thrombophilia may be part of the inflammation storm of COVID-19 and should not systematically modify our strategy on prophylactic anticoagulant treatment, which is already revised upwards in this pathological condition. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04335162.

Presepsin versus other biomarkers to predict sepsis and septic shock in patients with infection defined by Sepsis-3 criteria: the PREDI study of diagnostic accuracy. / Capacidad diagnóstica de presepsina comparada con otros biomarcadores para predecir sepsis y shock séptico en pacientes con infección siguiendo la definición Sepsis-3 (estudio PREDI).

OBJECTIVES: An accurate diagnosis of sepsis in the emergency department must be made before appropriate treatment can be started. Many biomarkers that are potentially useful have been studied. The main aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of blood levels of presepsin, lactate, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) for predicting sepsis as defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria. The secondary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers for predicting bacteremia whether or not sepsis or septic shock was present. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational cohort study in the emergency department of a university hospital. Consecutive patients suspected of having infection were enrolled prospectively if they had at least 2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome. We measured presepsin, PCT, CRP, and lactate in blood extracted on admission. RESULTS: Blood samples from 359 patients were analyzed; 228 (63.5%) met the criteria for sepsis and 20 (5.6%) met the criteria for septic shock. PCT and presepsin levels were the best predictors of sepsis and septic shock with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.711 (95% CI, 0.660-0.758) and 0.709 (95% CI, 0.658- 0.756), respectively (P <.001, both comparisons). The AUCs for CRP and lactate concentrations were, respectively, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.58-0.69) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.66) (P <.05, both comparisons). On applying the diagnostic cut points of 0.25 ng/mL for PCT and 500 pg/mL for presepsin, the odds ratios were 2.51 (95% CI, 1.53-4.12) for PCT and 3.19 (95% CI, 1.91-5.31) for presepsin. The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of presepsin and PCT results (AUC, 0.71; 95% CI 0.66-0.76; P <.001) was no better than the accuracy of PCT alone. The most accurate predictor of bacteremia was PCT (AUC, 0.835; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Presepsin and PCT seem to be the best predictors of a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock in emergency department patients.

OBJETIVO: El diagnóstico correcto de la sepsis en urgencias es clave para iniciar el tratamiento de forma adecuada. Para ello, se han estudiado múltiples biomarcadores que podrían ser de utilidad. El objetivo principal de este estudio fue evaluar la capacidad diagnóstica de presepsina en sangre, en comparación con procalcitonina (PCT), proteína C reactiva (PCR) y lactato, para predecir sepsis o shock séptico según la definición de Sepsis-3. El objetivo secundario fue valorar la capacidad de estos biomarcadores para predecir bacteriemia, independientemente del diagnóstico final de sepsis o shock séptico. METODO: Estudio prospectivo de cohorte observacional, realizado en un único servicio de urgencias (SU) de un hospital universitario. Se incluyeron pacientes con sospecha clínica de infección y al menos dos criterios de síndrome de respuesta inflamatoria sistémica. En todos los pacientes se determinó en sangre presepsina, PCT, PCR y lactato en el momento de la visita en el SU. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 359 pacientes, de los que 228 (63,5%) presentaban criterios de sepsis y 20 (5,6%) de shock séptico. PCT y presepsina fueron los mejores biomarcadores para predecir la sepsis/shock séptico con un área bajo la curva (ABC) de la capacidad operativa del receptor (ROC) de 0,711 (IC 95% 0,660-0,758; p < 0,001) y 0,709 (IC 95% 0,658-0,756; p < 0,001). La PCR obtuvo una ABC de 0,635 (IC 95% 0,582-0,686; p < 0,05), y el lactato una ABC de 0,61 (IC 95% 0,556-0,661; p < 0,05). Se utilizó un punto de decisión de 0,25 ng/ml para PCT y de 500 pg/ ml para presepsina. La odds ratio de presepsina para predecir sepsis fue de 3,19 (IC 95% 1,91-5,31) y para PCT de 2,51 (IC 95% 1,53-4,12). El diagnóstico de sepsis/shock séptico no mejoró al combinar presepsina y PCT (el ABC-ROC fue de 0,714, IC 95% 0,66-0,76; p < 0,001) en comparación con PCT aislada. La PCT fue el predictor más preciso de bacteriemia en pacientes con infección con un ABC-ROC de 0,835 (IC 95% 0,79-0,87; p < 0,001). CONCLUSIONES: La presepsina y la PCT son los biomarcadores con mejor rendimiento para el diagnóstico de sepsis y shock séptico en el SU.

Intranasal sufentanil given in the emergency department triage zone for severe acute traumatic pain: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

The goal of our study was to determine if an intranasal (IN) dose of sufentanil delivered in the ED triage zone would improve the management of severely painful patients. We performed a randomized, double blind and placebo-controlled trial on adult patients suffering from an acute severe pain (≥ 6/10) consecutive to an isolated limb injury. We compared 2 analgesic strategies: the usual pain treatment with IV-only multimodal analgesics (IVMA) including IV opioids if needed (control group) and another strategy (active group) based on a single dose of IN sufentanil (0.4 µg/kg) given at triage and followed by IV multimodal analgesia. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients reaching pain-relief (≤ 3/10) 30 min after IN injection at triage. Secondary outcomes were rates of adverse events, frequency of clinical interventions required by these events, and satisfaction of patients. A total of 144 adult participants completed the study, 72 in each group. Compared with usual IV-only pain management, the analgesic strategy initiated in triage zone with a dose of IN sufentanil increased the proportion of patients reaching pain relief in 30 min: 72.2% versus 51.4%, in our trial (p = 0.01 and number needed to treat of 5). There was no serious adverse event (AE) in both groups. Patients who received IN sufentanil experienced more frequently minor opiate side effects. Proportion of respiratory AEs was higher in the active group (12.5% of bradypnea < 10 cycles per minute versus 1.4%) but these events were of mild severity, as only 2 participants (one in each group) received temporary low dose oxygen therapy, and none required naloxone. Lengths of stay in the ED were similar in both groups, as well as satisfaction of patients (above 9/10) and pain scores at discharge (< 2/10). We found that a single dose of IN sufentanil delivered in the ED triage zone significantly increases the proportion of severely painful patients reaching painrelief in 30 min, compared to usual analgesia with IV-only multimodal analgesia.

Adverse Events With Ketamine Versus Ketofol for Procedural Sedation on Adults: A Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of our study was to compare the frequency and severity of recovery reactions between ketamine and ketamine-propofol 1:1 admixture ("ketofol"). METHODS: We performed a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial in which adult patients received emergency procedural sedations with ketamine or ketofol. Our primary outcome was the proportion of unpleasant recovery reactions. Other outcomes were frequency of interventions required by these recovery reactions, rates of respiratory or hemodynamic events, emesis, and satisfaction of patients as well as providers. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients completed the study, 76 in each arm. Compared with ketamine, ketofol determined a 22% reduction in recovery reactions incidence (p < 0.01) and less clinical and pharmacologic interventions required by these reactions. There was no serious adverse event in both groups. Rates in hemodynamic or respiratory events as well as satisfaction scores were similar. Significantly fewer patients experienced emesis with ketofol, with a threefold reduction in incidence compared with ketamine. CONCLUSION: We found a significant reduction in recovery reactions and emesis frequencies among adult patients receiving emergency procedural sedations with ketofol, compared with ketamine.

Capacidad diagnóstica de presepsina comparada con otros biomarcadores para predecir sepsis y shock séptico en pacientes con infección siguiendo la definición Sepsis-3 (estudio PREDI) / Presepsin versus other biomarkers to predict sepsis and septic shock in patients with infection defined by Sepsis-3 criteria: the PREDI study of diagnostic accuracy

Objetivos. El diagnóstico correcto de la sepsis en urgencias es clave para iniciar el tratamiento de forma adecuada. Para ello, se han estudiado múltiples biomarcadores que podrían ser de utilidad. El objetivo principal de este estudio fue evaluar la capacidad diagnóstica de presepsina en sangre, en comparación con procalcitonina (PCT), proteína C reactiva (PCR) y lactato, para predecir sepsis o shock séptico según la definición de Sepsis-3. El objetivo secundario fue valorar la capacidad de estos biomarcadores para predecir bacteriemia, independientemente del diagnóstico final de sepsis o shock séptico. Método. Estudio prospectivo de cohorte observacional, realizado en un único servicio de urgencias (SU) de un hospital universitario. Se incluyeron pacientes con sospecha clínica de infección y al menos dos criterios de síndrome de respuesta inflamatoria sistémica. En todos los pacientes se determinó en sangre presepsina, PCT, PCR y lactato en el momento de la visita en el SU. Resultados. Se analizaron 359 pacientes, de los que 228 (63,5%) presentaban criterios de sepsis y 20 (5,6%) de shock séptico. PCT y presepsina fueron los mejores biomarcadores para predecir la sepsis/shock séptico con un área bajo la curva (ABC) de la capacidad operativa del receptor (ROC) de 0,711 (IC 95% 0,660-0,758; p < 0,001) y 0,709 (IC 95% 0,658-0,756; p < 0,001). La PCR obtuvo una ABC de 0,635 (IC 95% 0,582-0,686; p < 0,05), y el lactato una ABC de 0,61 (IC 95% 0,556-0,661; p < 0,05). Se utilizó un punto de decisión de 0,25 ng/ml para PCT y de 500 pg/ml para presepsina. La odds ratio de presepsina para predecir sepsis fue de 3,19 (IC 95% 1,91-5,31) y para PCT de 2,51 (IC 95% 1,53-4,12). El diagnóstico de sepsis/shock séptico no mejoró al combinar presepsina y PCT (el ABC-ROC fue de 0,714, IC 95% 0,66-0,76; p < 0,001) en comparación con PCT aislada. La PCT fue el predictor más preciso de bacteriemia en pacientes con infección con un ABC-ROC de 0,835 (IC 95% 0,79-0,87; p < 0,001). Conclusión. La presepsina y la PCT son los biomarcadores con mejor rendimiento para el diagnóstico de sepsis y shock séptico en el SU

Objectives. An accurate diagnosis of sepsis in the emergency department must be made before appropriate treatment can be started. Many biomarkers that are potentially useful have been studied. The main aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of blood levels of presepsin, lactate, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT) for predicting sepsis as defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria. The secondary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers for predicting bacteremia whether or not sepsis or septic shock was present. Methods. Single-center, prospective, observational cohort study in the emergency department of a university hospital. Consecutive patients suspected of having infection were enrolled prospectively if they had at least 2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome. We measured presepsin, PCT, CRP, and lactate in blood extracted on admission. Results. Blood samples from 359 patients were analyzed; 228 (63.5%) met the criteria for sepsis and 20 (5.6%) met the criteria for septic shock. PCT and presepsin levels were the best predictors of sepsis and septic shock with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.711 (95% CI, 0.660-0.758) and 0.709 (95% CI, 0.658-0.756), respectively (P<.001, both comparisons). The AUCs for CRP and lactate concentrations were, respectively, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.58-0.69) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.66) (P<.05, both comparisons). On applying the diagnostic cut points of 0.25 ng/mL for PCT and 500 pg/mL for presepsin, the odds ratios were 2.51 (95% CI, 1.53-4.12) for PCT and 3.19 (95% CI, 1.91-5.31) for presepsin. The diagnostic accuracy of the combination of presepsin and PCT results (AUC, 0.71; 95% CI 0.66-0.76; P<.001) was no better than the accuracy of PCT alone. The most accurate predictor of bacteremia was PCT (AUC, 0.835; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P<.001). Conclusion. Presepsin and PCT seem to be the best predictors of a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock in emergency department patients