Dataset Information

Case Volume-Outcomes Associations Among Patients With Severe Sepsis Who Underwent Interhospital Transfer.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Case volume-outcome associations bolster arguments to regionalize severe sepsis care, an approach that may necessitate interhospital patient transfers. Although transferred patients may most closely reflect care processes involved with regionalization, associations between sepsis case volume and outcomes among transferred patients are unclear. We investigated case volume-outcome associations among patients with severe sepsis transferred from another hospital. DESIGN:Serial cross-sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. SETTING:United States nonfederal hospitals, years 2003-2011. PATIENTS:One hundred forty-one thousand seven hundred seven patients (weighted national estimate of 717,732) with severe sepsis transferred from another acute care hospital. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We examined associations between quintiles of annual hospital severe sepsis case volume for the receiving hospital and in-hospital mortality among transferred patients with severe sepsis. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and total charges. Transferred patients accounted for 13.2% of hospitalized severe sepsis cases. In-hospital mortality was 33.2%, with median length of stay 11 days (interquartile range, 5-22), and median total charge $70,722 (interquartile range, $30,591-$159,013). Patients transferred to highest volume hospitals had higher predicted mortality risk, greater number of acutely dysfunctional organs, and lower adjusted in-hospital mortality when compared with the lowest-volume hospitals (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.90). In stratified analysis (p < 0.001 for interaction of case volume by organ failure), mortality benefit associated with case volume was limited to patients with single organ dysfunction (n = 48,607, 34.3% of transfers) (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80). Treatment at highest volume hospitals was significantly associated with shorter adjusted length of stay (incidence rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) but not costs (% charge difference, 95% CI: [-]18.8, [-]37.9 to [+]0.3). CONCLUSIONS:Hospital mortality was lowest among patients with severe sepsis who were transferred to high-volume hospitals; however, case volume benefits for transferred patients may be limited to patients with lower illness severity.

SUBMITTER: Ofoma UR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5350047 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Case Volume-Outcomes Associations Among Patients With Severe Sepsis Who Underwent Interhospital Transfer.

Ofoma Uchenna R UR Dahdah John J Kethireddy Shravan S Maeng Daniel D Walkey Allan J AJ

Critical care medicine 20170401 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Case volume-outcome associations bolster arguments to regionalize severe sepsis care, an approach that may necessitate interhospital patient transfers. Although transferred patients may most closely reflect care processes involved with regionalization, associations between sepsis case volume and outcomes among transferred patients are unclear. We investigated case volume-outcome associations among patients with severe sepsis transferred from another hospital.<h4>Design</h4>Ser ...[more]

PMID: 28151758

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal triage of critically ill patients with surgical sepsis may contribute to adverse outcomes. Patients transferred to a tertiary care center after spending 24 hours or longer at an outside facility were compared with patients who had early triage to a tertiary care center with the null hypothesis that management parameters and outcomes would be similar between groups.MethodsThis prospective observational cohort study included 308 patients treated for surgical sepsis in a surgical intensive care unit at a tertiary care center. Patients transferred after spending more than 24 hours at an outside facility (n = 69) were compared with patients who were directly admitted or transferred within 24 hours (n = 239). Patient characteristics, management parameters, and outcomes were compared between groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02276066).ResultsAverage outside facility length of stay in the delayed transfer group was 43 hours. Delayed transfer patients had higher sequential organ failure assessment (7 vs. 5, p = 0.003) and APACHE II scores (19 vs. 16, p = 0.007) on admission. The interval between admission and source control was significantly longer in the delayed transfer group (12.1 hours vs. 1.0 hours, p = 0.009). The incidence of nosocomial infection was significantly higher in the delayed transfer group (41% vs. 23%, p = 0.005). Delayed transfer was independently associated with a 10-day increase in hospital length of stay. Delayed transfer patients were less likely to be discharged home (22% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and suffered twofold higher in-hospital mortality (14.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.056).ConclusionPatients with surgical sepsis who spent more than 24 hours at an outside facility prior to transfer had greater initial illness severity, longer intervals between admission and source control, and more nosocomial infections compared with patients who had early triage to a tertiary care center.Level of evidenceCare management/therapeutic, Level IV; Epidemiologic/prognostic, Level III.

Project description:Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department.Design setting participantsObservational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020.Main outcome and measuresDemographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity.ResultsIn total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock remained controversial due to the paucity of data.MethodsThe retrospective case-control study included 671 adult patients who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from January 01, 2017 to December 31, 2019 with severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were categorized into the CHF group and the non-CHF group. The primary outcome was to evaluate the compliance with ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus within 6 hours of presentation. The comparison of baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were done between the groups who received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus. For the subgroup analysis of the CHF group, it was divided based on if they received ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus or not, and comparison was done for baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to explore the differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation.ResultsThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus was low in both the CHF and non-CHF groups [39% vs. 66% (p<0.05)]. Mortality was higher in the CHF group [33% vs 18% (p<0.05)]. Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 12% [OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95 (p<0.05)]. The use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation [OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05 (p = 0.78)]. In subgroup analysis, the use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus decreased the chances of mortality by 5% [OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, (p<0.05)] and did not increase the odds of mechanical ventilation. The presence of the low ejection fraction did not influence the chance of getting fluid bolus.ConclusionThe use of ≥30 mL/Kg fluid bolus seems to confer protection against in-hospital mortality and is not associated with increased chances of mechanical ventilation in heart failure patients presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Dataset Information

Case Volume-Outcomes Associations Among Patients With Severe Sepsis Who Underwent Interhospital Transfer.

Publications

Case Volume-Outcomes Associations Among Patients With Severe Sepsis Who Underwent Interhospital Transfer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets