Comparisons of community versus hospital presenting sepsis are surprisingly lacking. 1) Characterize baseline differences in emergency department (ED) versus inpatient (IP) presenting sepsis patients; 2) Compare ED versus IP presenting sepsis in 2 outcome domains: process outcomes and patient centered outcomes. 3) Estimate risk-differences for patient centered outcomes attributable to disparities in initial resuscitation. Design: Retrospective consecutive sample cohort. Setting: 9 Tertiary and Community Hospitals in New York over 1.5 years. Patients: All hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock, defined simultaneous 1) Infection AND 2) ≥2 SIRS criteria AND 3) ≥1 acute organ dysfunction criterion; with post-hoc confirmation. Exposure: ED versus IP presenting sepsis. ED sepsis defined as meeting all objective sepsis inclusion criteria while physically in the emergency department. IP sepsis defined as admitted patients meeting criteria after physically leaving the ED. Outcomes & Analysis: We assessed differences in baseline characteristics for IP versus ED sepsis with a generalized linear model using random effects to account for inter-hospital variability. We then generated a propensity-score for patient “location” when they presented with sepsis, and created a matched (PSM) cohort. We used doubly robust estimation in the PSM cohort to compare outcomes controlling for baseline differences. Process outcomes included 3h-bundle compliance and time to antibiotics. The primary patient outcome was hospital mortality. We calculated attributable risk to determine the proportion of patient outcome differences that were explained by resuscitation differences in groups. Of 11,182 sepsis hospitalizations, we classified 2,509 (22.4%) as IP and 8,673 (77.6%) as ED. Compared to ED sepsis, IP sepsis patients more often had heart failure (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.18-1.47), renal failure (OR: 1.62, 1.38-1.91), or gastrointestinal infection (OR: 1.84, 1.48-2.29); more often presented with hypotension (OR: 1.85, 1.65-2.08), or impaired gas exchange (OR: 2.46, 1.43-4.24). IP sepsis less often were admitted from skilled nursing centers (OR: 0.44, 0.32-0.60), had COPD (OR: 0.53, 0.36-0.78), were febrile (OR: 0.64, 0.52-0.78) or tachypneic (OR: 0.76, 0.58-0.98), and presented with acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, 0.68-0.97). In a cohort of 1,922 propensity matched pairs (n=3,844), IP sepsis patients had less than half the odds of receiving 3h-bundle compliant care (17.0% versus 30.3%, OR: 0.47, 0.40-0.57) or receiving antibiotics within 3-hrs (66.2% versus 83.8%, OR: 0.38, CI:0.32-0.44) versus. ED sepsis. IP sepsis was associated with higher mortality (31.2% versus 19.3%, OR:1.90, CI:1.64-2.20), but only 23.3% of this association was attributable to initial resuscitation differences (resuscitation adjusted OR:1.69, 1.43-2.00). Sepsis patients in the ED differed dramatically from IP sepsis by demographics, infection source, chronic and acute illness at presentation, and presenting signs. ED patients receive markedly more timely initial resuscitation, and have substantially better outcomes, but this disparity explains only a modest proportion of mortality differences. If and how these 2 populations should be conflated by treatment recommendations is unclear.
Read full abstract