Dataset Information

Retrospective study on the possible existence of a treatment paradox in sepsis scores in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is developed as a tool to identify patients with infection with increased risk of dying from sepsis in non-intensive care unit settings, like the emergency department (ED). An abnormal score may trigger the initiation of appropriate therapy to reduce that risk. This study assesses the risk of a treatment paradox: the effect of a strong predictor for mortality will be reduced if that predictor also acts as a trigger for initiating treatment to prevent mortality.

Design

Retrospective analysis on data from a large observational cohort.

Setting

ED of a tertiary medical centre in the Netherlands.

Participants

3178 consecutive patients with suspected infection.

Primary outcome

To evaluate the existence of a treatment paradox by determining the influence of baseline qSOFA on treatment decisions within the first 24 hours after admission.

Results

226 (7.1%) had a qSOFA ≥2, of which 51 (22.6%) died within 30 days. Area under receiver operating characteristics of qSOFA for 30-day mortality was 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.75). Patients with a qSOFA ≥2 had higher odds of receiving any form of intensive therapy (OR 11.4 (95% CI 7.5 to 17.1)), such as aggressive fluid resuscitation (OR 8.8 95% CI 6.6 to 11.8), fast antibiotic administration (OR 8.5, 95% CI 5.7 to 12.3) or vasopressic therapy (OR 17.3, 95% CI 11.2 to 26.8), compared with patients with qSOFA <2.

Conclusion

In ED patients with suspected infection, a qSOFA ≥2 was associated with more intensive treatment. This could lead to inadequate prediction of 30-day mortality due to the presence of a treatment paradox.

Trial registration number

6916.

SUBMITTER: Uffen JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7957128 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent sepsis screening tools are predominantly based on vital signs. However, patients with serious infections frequently present with normal vital signs and there has been an increased interest to include other variables such as symptoms in screening tools to detect sepsis. The majority of patients with sepsis arrive to the emergency department by emergency medical services. Our hypothesis was that the presentation of sepsis, including symptoms, may differ between patients arriving to the emergency department by emergency medical services and patients arriving by other means. This information is of interest to adapt future sepsis screening tools to the population in which they will be implemented. The aim of the current study was to compare the prevalence of keywords reflecting the clinical presentation of sepsis based on mode of arrival among septic patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsRetrospective cross-sectional study of 479 adult septic patients. Keywords reflecting sepsis presentation upon emergency department arrival were quantified and analyzed based on mode of arrival, i.e., by emergency medical services or by other means. We adjusted for multiple comparisons by applying Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels for all comparisons. Adjustments for age, gender, and sepsis severity were performed by stratification. All patients were admitted to the emergency department of Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, and discharged with an ICD-10 code compatible with sepsis between January 1, and December 31, 2013.Results"Abnormal breathing" (51.8% vs 20.5%, p value < 0.001), "abnormal circulation" (38.4% vs 21.3%, p value < 0.001), "acute altered mental status" (31.1% vs 13.1%, p value < 0.001), and "decreased mobility" (26.1% vs 10.7%, p value < 0.001) were more common among patients arriving by emergency medical services, while "pain" (71.3% vs 40.1%, p value < 0.001) and "risk factors for sepsis" (50.8% vs 30.8%, p value < 0.001) were more common among patients arriving by other means.ConclusionsThe distribution of most keywords related to sepsis presentation was similar irrespective of mode of arrival; however, some differences were present. This information may be useful in clinical decision tools or sepsis screening tools.

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:BACKGROUND:Acute appendicitis is a global disease and a very common indication for emergency surgery worldwide. The need for hospital resources is therefore constantly high. The administration in Kanta-Häme Central Hospital, Southern Finland, called for an urgent reorganisation due to shortage of hospital beds at the department of general surgery. Postoperative treatment pathway of patients with nonperforated acute appendicitis was ordered to take place in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess, whether this reorganisation was feasible and safe, i.e. did it affect the length of in-hospital stay (LOS) and the 30-day complication rate. METHODS:This is a retrospective pre- and post-intervention analysis. After the reorganisation, most patients with nonperforated appendicitis were followed postoperatively at the 24-h observation unit of the ED instead of surgical ward. Patients operated during the first 3 months after the reorganisation were compared to those operated during the 3 months before it. A case met inclusion criteria if there were no signs of appendiceal perforation during surgery. Exclusion criteria comprised age?<?18?years and perforated disease. RESULTS:Appendicectomy was performed on 112 patients, of whom 62 were adults with nonperforated appendicitis. Twenty-seven of the included patients were treated before the reorganisation, and 35 after it. Twenty of the latter were followed only at the ED. Postoperative LOS decreased significantly after the reorganisation. Median postoperative time till discharge was 15.7?h for all patients after the reorganisation compared to 24.4?h before the reorganisation (standard error 6.2?h, 95% confidence interval 2.3-15.2?h, p <?0.01). There were no more complications in the group treated postoperatively in the ED. CONCLUSIONS:Early discharge of patients with nonperforated appendicitis after enforced urgent reorganisation of the treatment pathway in the ED observation unit is safe and feasible. Shifting the postoperative monitoring and the discharge policy of such patients to the ED - instead of the surgical ward - occurred in the majority of the cases after the reorganisation. This change may spare resources as in our series it resulted in a significantly shorter LOS without any increase in the 30-day complication rate.