Dataset Information

Association of triage hypothermia with in-hospital mortality among patients in the emergency department with suspected sepsis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To identify if triage hypothermia (<36.0 °C) among emergency department (ED) encounters with sepsis are independently associated with mortality.

Methods

We analyzed data from a multi-stage probability sample survey of visits to United States EDs between 2007 and 2015, using two inclusion approaches: an explicit definition based on diagnosis codes for sepsis and a severe sepsis definition, combining evidence of infection with organ dysfunction. We used multivariable regression to determine an association between hypothermia and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 1.2 billion ED encounters (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.3 billion), 3.1 million (95% CI 2.7-3.5 million) met the explicit sepsis definition; 7.4% (95% CI 75.2-9.7%) had triage hypothermia. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hypothermia for in-hospital mortality was 6.82 (95% CI 3.08-15.22). The severe sepsis definition identified 3.5 million (95% 3.1-4.0 million) encounters; 30.3% (95% CI 25.0-34.6%) had triage hypothermia. The aOR for hypothermia with mortality was 4.08 (95% CI 2.09-7.95). Depending on sepsis definition, 78.1-84.4% had other systemic inflammatory response syndrome vital sign abnormalities.

Conclusion

Up to one in three patients with sepsis have triage hypothermia, which is independently associated with mortality. 10-20% of patients with hypothermic sepsis do not have other vital sign abnormalities.

SUBMITTER: Ramgopal S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7872398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Project description:BackgroundUrgency triage in the emergency department (ED) is important for early identification of potentially lethal conditions and extensive resource utilization. However, in older patients, urgency triage systems could be improved by taking geriatric vulnerability into account. We investigated the association of geriatric vulnerability screening in addition to triage urgency levels with 30-day mortality in older ED patients.DesignSecondary analysis of the observational multicenter Acutely Presenting Older Patient (APOP) study.SettingEDs within four Dutch hospitals.ParticipantsConsecutive patients, aged 70 years or older, who were prospectively included.MeasurementsPatients were triaged using the Manchester Triage System (MTS). In addition, the APOP screener was used as a geriatric screening tool. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Comparison was made between mortality within the geriatric high- and low-risk screened patients in every urgency triage category. We calculated the difference in explained variance of mortality by adding the geriatric screener (APOP) to triage urgency (MTS) by calculating Nagelkerke R2 .ResultsWe included 2,608 patients with a median age of 79 (interquartile range = 74-84) years, of whom 521 (20.0%) patients were categorized as high risk according to geriatric screening. Patients were triaged on urgency as standard (27.2%), urgent (58.5%), and very urgent (14.3%). In total, 132 (5.1%) patients were deceased within a period of 30 days. Within every urgency triage category, 30-day mortality was threefold higher in geriatric high-risk compared to low-risk patients (overall = 11.7% vs 3.4%; P < .001). The explained variance of 30-day mortality with triage urgency was 1.0% and increased to 6.3% by adding the geriatric screener.ConclusionCombining triage urgency with geriatric screening has the potential to improve triage, which may help clinicians to deliver early appropriate care to older ED patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1755-1762, 2020.

Project description:ObjectiveTo predict hospital admission at the time of ED triage using patient history in addition to information collected at triage.MethodsThis retrospective study included all adult ED visits between March 2014 and July 2017 from one academic and two community emergency rooms that resulted in either admission or discharge. A total of 972 variables were extracted per patient visit. Samples were randomly partitioned into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) sets. We trained a series of nine binary classifiers using logistic regression (LR), gradient boosting (XGBoost), and deep neural networks (DNN) on three dataset types: one using only triage information, one using only patient history, and one using the full set of variables. Next, we tested the potential benefit of additional training samples by training models on increasing fractions of our data. Lastly, variables of importance were identified using information gain as a metric to create a low-dimensional model.ResultsA total of 560,486 patient visits were included in the study, with an overall admission risk of 29.7%. Models trained on triage information yielded a test AUC of 0.87 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.88) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on patient history yielded an AUC of 0.86 for LR (95% CI 0.86-0.87), 0.87 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.87-0.87) and 0.87 for DNN (95% CI 0.87-0.88). Models trained on the full set of variables yielded an AUC of 0.91 for LR (95% CI 0.91-0.91), 0.92 for XGBoost (95% CI 0.92-0.93) and 0.92 for DNN (95% CI 0.92-0.92). All algorithms reached maximum performance at 50% of the training set or less. A low-dimensional XGBoost model built on ESI level, outpatient medication counts, demographics, and hospital usage statistics yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.91-0.91).ConclusionMachine learning can robustly predict hospital admission using triage information and patient history. The addition of historical information improves predictive performance significantly compared to using triage information alone, highlighting the need to incorporate these variables into prediction models.

Project description:Following emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission.We used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model.A total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P?<?0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50; P?<?0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32-6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P?<?0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P?<?0.001).In comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.

Project description:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 recommends that adult patients with sepsis requiring intensive care should be admitted to the ICU within 6 hours of their emergency department (ED) visits. However, there is limited evidence on whether 6 hours is the best target time for compliance with the sepsis bundle. We aimed to investigate the association between time from ED visits to ICU admission (i.e., ED length of stay [ED-LOS]) and mortality and identify the optimal ED-LOS for patients with sepsis.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care Emergency Department and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV databases.PatientsAdult patients (≥ 18 yr old) who were transferred from the ED to the ICU and subsequently diagnosed with sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria within 24 hours of ICU admission.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 1,849 patients with sepsis, we found a disproportionally higher mortality rate in patients immediately admitted to the ICU (e.g., < 2 hr). When using ED-LOS as a continuous variable, ED-LOS was not significantly associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] per hour increase, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; p = 0.3) after an adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., demographics, triage vital signs, and laboratory results) in the multivariable analysis. However, when we categorized all patients into time quartiles (ED-LOS: < 3.3 hr, 3.3-4.5 hr, 4.6-6.1 hr, and > 6.1 hr), patients in the higher time quartiles (e.g., 3.3-4.5 hr) had higher 28-day mortality compared with those in the lowest time quartile (< 3.3 hr) (e.g., adjusted OR for patients in the second time quartile [3.3-4.5 hr] 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46; p = 0.04).ConclusionsEarlier admission to the ICU (e.g., within 3.3 hr of ED visits) was associated with lower 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. Our findings suggest patients with sepsis who require intensive care may benefit from a more immediate ICU admission than 6 hours.

Project description:ObjectivesPredictive analytics in emergency care has mostly been limited to the use of clinical decision rules (CDRs) in the form of simple heuristics and scoring systems. In the development of CDRs, limitations in analytic methods and concerns with usability have generally constrained models to a preselected small set of variables judged to be clinically relevant and to rules that are easily calculated. Furthermore, CDRs frequently suffer from questions of generalizability, take years to develop, and lack the ability to be updated as new information becomes available. Newer analytic and machine learning techniques capable of harnessing the large number of variables that are already available through electronic health records (EHRs) may better predict patient outcomes and facilitate automation and deployment within clinical decision support systems. In this proof-of-concept study, a local, big data-driven, machine learning approach is compared to existing CDRs and traditional analytic methods using the prediction of sepsis in-hospital mortality as the use case.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of adult ED visits admitted to the hospital meeting criteria for sepsis from October 2013 to October 2014. Sepsis was defined as meeting criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome with an infectious admitting diagnosis in the ED. ED visits were randomly partitioned into an 80%/20% split for training and validation. A random forest model (machine learning approach) was constructed using over 500 clinical variables from data available within the EHRs of four hospitals to predict in-hospital mortality. The machine learning prediction model was then compared to a classification and regression tree (CART) model, logistic regression model, and previously developed prediction tools on the validation data set using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and chi-square statistics.ResultsThere were 5,278 visits among 4,676 unique patients who met criteria for sepsis. Of the 4,222 patients in the training group, 210 (5.0%) died during hospitalization, and of the 1,056 patients in the validation group, 50 (4.7%) died during hospitalization. The AUCs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the different models were as follows: random forest model, 0.86 (95% CI = 0.82 to 0.90); CART model, 0.69 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.77); logistic regression model, 0.76 (95% CI = 0.69 to 0.82); CURB-65, 0.73 (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.80); MEDS, 0.71 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77); and mREMS, 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65 to 0.79). The random forest model AUC was statistically different from all other models (p ≤ 0.003 for all comparisons).ConclusionsIn this proof-of-concept study, a local big data-driven, machine learning approach outperformed existing CDRs as well as traditional analytic techniques for predicting in-hospital mortality of ED patients with sepsis. Future research should prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of this approach and whether it translates into improved clinical outcomes for high-risk sepsis patients. The methods developed serve as an example of a new model for predictive analytics in emergency care that can be automated, applied to other clinical outcomes of interest, and deployed in EHRs to enable locally relevant clinical predictions.