Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Research Articles

Assessment of adherence to the 2020 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock in paediatric emergency departments: a prospective multicentre study

BackgroundPaediatric sepsis is the leading cause of death in children under 5 years. No studies have evaluated the application of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2020 (SSC-2020) guidelines in paediatric emergency...

Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.

Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality, with diagnosis and treatment remaining a challenge for clinicians. Their management classically encompasses hemodynamic resuscitation, antibiotic treatment, life support, and focus control; however, there are aspects that have changed. This narrative review highlights current and avant-garde methods of handling patients experiencing septic shock based on the experience of its authors and the best available evidence in a context of uncertainty. Following the first recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, it is recommended that specific sepsis care performance improvement programs are implemented in hospitals, i.e., "Sepsis Code" programs, designed ad hoc, to achieve this goal. Regarding hemodynamics, the importance of perfusion and hemodynamic coherence stand out, which allow for the recognition of different phenotypes, determination of the ideal time for commencing vasopressor treatment, and the appropriate fluid therapy dosage. At present, this is not only important for the initial timing, but also for de-resuscitation, which involves the early weaning of support therapies, directed elimination of fluids, and fluid tolerance concept. Finally, regarding blood purification therapies, those aimed at eliminating endotoxins and cytokines are attractive in the early management of patients in septic shock.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Early Versus Late Initiation of Hydrocortisone in Patients With Septic Shock: A Prospective Study.

Introduction The optimal timing of corticosteroid initiation in septic shock patients is debatable. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommended adding hydrocortisone to septic shock patients who require a vasopressor with a dose of norepinephrine ≥ 0.25 mcg/kg/min for at least four hours. Nevertheless, the best time to initiate hydrocortisone remains uncertain. Objective Assessing the impact of early (≤3 hours) versus late (>3 hours) initiation of hydrocortisone in septic patients. Methodology We compared the outcomes of septic shock patients who received hydrocortisone within three hours versus those who started treatment after three hours. The inclusion criteria encompassed septic shock patients aged 18 or older who received at least one dose of hydrocortisone. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, do-not-resuscitate orders, the absence of empirical intravenous antibiotics, recent corticosteroid use, recent cardiac arrest, and a history of adrenal insufficiency. Results Eighty-one patients were included (54% were males). The mean age was 59 years, and 56.8% of patients were in the early group. The time needed to discontinue vasopressors was 25 and 37 hours for the early and late groups, respectively (p = 0.009), and more patients achieved reversal of shock (35 vs. 24 patients) and had shorter ICU stays (17 days vs. 20 days). Conclusion Initiating hydrocortisone early, within three hours, reduced the time needed to discontinue vasopressors among the study population. However, both early and late initiation strategies yielded comparable outcomes in terms of ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, and shock reversal.

Time Is Survival: Continuing Education on Sepsis for Neurosurgical Critical Care Nurses.

Early identification of sepsis among neurosurgical critical care patients is a significant challenge because of the many possible confounding variables that lead to altered mental status in this specific patient population. Nurses' knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and practices related to the early identification and management of sepsis are crucial to patients' survival. This evidence-based intervention project implemented continuing education for neurosurgical critical care nurses on the early signs and symptoms of sepsis and the management of sepsis according to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Guidelines. Continuing education on sepsis increased neurosurgical critical care nurses' knowledge of the SSC 1-hour sepsis bundle, reported confidence in the management of sepsis, and likelihood of assessing for sepsis. Continuing education for neurosurgical critical care nurses on the signs and symptoms of sepsis and the SSC Guidelines is necessary and may improve patient outcomes. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024;55(5):224-230.].

Argipressin-norepinephrine association in the treatment of septic shock: the use of the polydistrectual resistance index as an assessment of vascular compliance

IntroductionThe hemodynamic management of septic patients involves initial fluid therapy, followed by the use of vasoconstrictors in case of treatment failure. The latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines suggest the synergistic use of argipressin in addition to norepinephrine when hemodynamic optimization is not achieved with norepinephrine alone.MethodsIn our single-center retrospective observational study, the primary endpoint is the safety of initial norepinephrine-argipressin association treatment, assessed through a reduction in Resistance Index. Our secondary endpoint includes the efficacy of this combination, measured by an increase in Mean Arterial Pressure and a reduction in Resistance Index as an indicator of organ perfusion. The Resistance Index (RI) is evaluated through Power Doppler ultrasound. RI is crucial for assessing multi-district vascular tone and multiorgan perfusion. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their treatment. In Group 1, we analyzed patients treated with norepinephrine alone in incremental doses; in Group 2, we analyzed patients receiving the initial norepinephrine-argipressin association treatment (norepinephrine 0.05 mcg/kg/min-argipressin 0.03 IU/min); in the third group (Group 3), we analyzed patients given argipressin (0.03 IU/min) after norepinephrine (<0.10–0.25≥ mcg/kg/min) to stabilize their hemodynamics (MAP > 65 mmHg). RI measurements were taken in the Renal Artery (ARE), Radial Artery (AR), Central Retinal Artery (CRA), and Superior Mesenteric Artery (AMS) at four different time points: T0 before vasopressor therapy, T1 at 1 h, T2 at 24 h, and T3 at 48 h after vasopressor infusion.ResultsA total of 48 patients were divided into three groups: 17 patients in Group 1, 16 in Group 2, and 15 in Group 3. In Group 1, an increase in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) was observed, but there was an increase in RIs in the right CRI and left ARE. In Group 2, there was an improvement in MAP and a reduction in RIs in the right/left CRI, left ARE, AMS, and right AR. In Group 3, there was an increase in MAP and a reduction in RIs in the right/left CRI, left ARE, AMS, and right AR.ConclusionEarly norepinephrine-argipressin association treatment appears to be a valid strategy for hemodynamic optimization in this patient population.

Impact of emergency medicine clinical pharmacist practitioner-driven sepsis antibiotic interventions

BackgroundThe 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend administration of antimicrobials within the first hour of recognition of sepsis. Over the last decade, several studies have demonstrated improved time-to-antibiotic administration and antibiotic appropriateness when a pharmacist was involved in the care of patients with sepsis. To our knowledge, no studies evaluating the appropriate use of antibiotics in sepsis driven entirely by an Emergency Medicine (EM) Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner (CPP) have been published. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of an EM CPP-driven protocol on antimicrobial interventions in patients with sepsis in the emergency department (ED). MethodsThis was a retrospective comparison of patients with sepsis for whom antimicrobials were ordered in the ED without pharmacist intervention to patients whose antimicrobials were ordered by an EM CPP via a sepsis consult to pharmacy. An EM CPP reviewed individual patient profiles for pertinent historical admissions, culture data, and allergy profiles to guide antimicrobial selection for the suspected source of infection and entered orders under their scope of practice with formal documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR). The primary objective of this study was to compare the rates of appropriate empiric antibiotic utilization in septic patients admitted from the ED pre- and post-protocol implementation. Secondary endpoints included the following, broadening of ED-initiated empiric antibiotics on hospital admission, time-to-antibiotic administration, in-hospital mortality, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) association with in-hospital mortality, and hospital length of stay. ResultsA total of 144 patients were included: 80 patients prescribed antibiotics without pharmacist intervention and 64 prescribed antibiotics by an EM CPP. Appropriate empiric antibiotic selection in the ED improved from 57.5% (46/80) to 86% (55/64) with EM CPP intervention (difference 28.5%; p < 0.01). Time-to-first antibiotic administration decreased by 64 min (p < 0.01). Administration of antibiotics within 60 min, broadening of antibiotics on admission, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ across groups. ConclusionsIn this small, single-center study, an EM Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner-driven protocol for patients with sepsis in the emergency department improved the rate of appropriate empiric antimicrobial selection and time-to-antibiotic administration.

Patient diversity and author representation in clinical studies supporting the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021: a systematic review of citations

BackgroundThe generalizability of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines to various patient populations and hospital settings has been debated. A quantitative assessment of the diversity and representation in the clinical evidence supporting the guidelines would help evaluate the generalizability of the recommendations and identify strategic research goals and priorities. In this study, we evaluated the diversity of patients in the original studies, in terms of sex, race/ethnicity, and geographical location. We also assessed diversity in sex and geographical representation among study first and last authors.MethodsAll clinical studies cited in support of the 2021 SSC adult guideline recommendations were identified. Original clinical studies were included, while editorials, reviews, non-clinical studies, and meta-analyses were excluded. For eligible studies, we recorded the proportion of male patients, percentage of each represented racial/ethnic subgroup (when available), and countries in which they were conducted. We also recorded the sex and location of the first and last authors. The World Bank classification was used to categorize countries.ResultsThe SSC guidelines included six sections, with 85 recommendations based on 351 clinical studies. The proportion of male patients ranged from 47 to 62%. Most studies did not report the racial/ ethnic distribution of the included patients; when they did so, most were White patients (68–77%). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (77–99%), which included Europe/Central Asia (33–66%) and North America (36–55%). Moreover, most first/last authors were males (55–93%) and from high-income countries (77–99%).ConclusionsTo enhance the generalizability of the SCC guidelines, stakeholders should define strategies to enhance the diversity and representation in clinical studies. Though there was reasonable representation in sex among patients included in clinical studies, the evidence did not reflect diversity in the race/ethnicity and geographical locations. There was also lack of diversity among the first and last authors contributing to the evidence.

Vasopressin in Sepsis and Other Shock States: State of the Art.

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice.

Assessment of implementation methods in sepsis: study protocol for a cluster-randomized hybrid type 2 trial

BackgroundSepsis is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU death. In recognition of the burden of sepsis, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement developed sepsis “bundles” (goals to accomplish over a specific time period) to facilitate SSC guideline implementation in clinical practice. Using the SSC 3-h bundle as a base, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services developed a 3-h sepsis bundle that has become the national standard for early management of sepsis. Emerging observational data, from an analysis conducted for the AIMS grant application, suggest there may be additional mortality benefit from even earlier implementation of the 3-h bundle, i.e., the 1-h bundle.MethodThe primary aims of this randomized controlled trial are to: (1) examine the effect on clinical outcomes of Emergency Department initiation of the elements of the 3-h bundle within the traditional 3 h versus initiating within 1 h of sepsis recognition and (2) examine the extent to which a rigorous implementation strategy will improve implementation and compliance with both the 1-h bundle and the 3-h bundle. This study will be entirely conducted in the Emergency Department at 18 sites. A secondary aim is to identify clinical sepsis phenotypes and their impact on treatment outcomes.DiscussionThis cluster-randomized trial, employing implementation science methodology, is timely and important to the field. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design is likely to have an impact on clinical practice in sepsis management by providing a rigorous evaluation of the 1- and 3-h bundles.FundingNHLBI R01HL162954.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05491941. Registered on August 8, 2022.

Hemoperfusion in anesthesia and intensive care medicine: benefits, risks, and evidence for different systems

Hemoperfusion is atechnique for the extracorporeal elimination of endogenous and exogenous toxins and harmful mediators by adsorption. It can be used as astand-alone device, as part of aheart-lung machine or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or, as is currently the case, integrated into akidney replacement procedure. In the meantime, various suppliers offer devices with different technologies. The aim of this work was to evaluate the benefits, risks and evidence of the different systems, how they work and for which indications they are approved in Germany. To achieve this goal, anarrative assessment of the existing literature and guidelines for different indications was performed. The focus was on in vivo studies. In principle, adistinction must be made in adsorption techniques between pure adsorption and the combination as adsorption and kidney replacement therapy. The adsorbers available in Germany include Cytosorb®, HA-330, Seraph®-100 and Toraymyxin. Combined procedures (adsorption and kidney replacement) are offered with coupled plasma filtration and adsorption (CPFA) and oXiris®. Most adsorbers have been developed for cytokine and endotoxin removal in patients with sepsis; however, to date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated asurvival benefit when using hemoperfusion. Therefore, the S3 guidelines for treatment of sepsis and the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines advise against its routine use. When the corona pandemic began, hemoperfusion was considered as apromising therapeutic approach. Cytosorb®, Seraph®-100, and oXiris® received emergency approval by the FDA to be used in critically ill patients with COVID-19, so questions arose about the appropriateness and importance of its use; however, the data generated did not show positive results, so its use cannot be recommended routinely either. In addition, they are not mentioned as atreatment option in the current guidelines. The use of adsorption procedures in patients with liver failure and rhabdomyolysis has only been rudimentarily studied, so any evidence is currently lacking. The only adsorber that has CE approval in Germany for both applications is Cytosorb®. In the next few years, studies will have to follow that investigate the efficacy and thus either justify or refute the use in clinical routine. Hemoperfusion procedures are used in the heart-lung machine as part of cardiac surgery for either cytokine or anticoagulant adsorption. No congruent data are available to support the use for the elimination of cytokines. If emergency cardiac surgery is required in apatient with pre-existing anticoagulation, hemoperfusion procedures can be used to prevent bleeding complications. Cytosorb® has CE approval for this indication. All available techniques are nonselective adsorption processes, so that adsorption of known and unknown substances can occur. Unintentional adsorption of drugs, such as various anti-infective agents is arelevant risk, especially when used in patients with sepsis. Various adsorption systems can eliminate different known and unknown substances. Currently, there is alack of evidence for all indications and systems to justify their routine use except in clinical trials. Future clinical trials should evaluate the potential benefits but also dangers, so that in the meantime the routine use can be justified or arecommendation against the use can be given.

Subclinical cardiac dysfunction may impact on fluid and vasopressor administration during early resuscitation of septic shock

BackgroundAccording to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) fluids and vasopressors are the mainstays of early resuscitation of septic shock while inotropes are indicated in case of tissue hypoperfusion refractory to fluids and vasopressors, suggesting severe cardiac dysfunction. However, septic cardiac disfunction encompasses a large spectrum of severities and may remain “subclinical” during early resuscitation. We hypothesized that “subclinical” cardiac dysfunction may nevertheless influence fluid and vasopressor administration during early resuscitation. We retrospectively reviewed prospectically collected data on fluids and vasoconstrictors administered outside the ICU in patients with septic shock resuscitated according to the SSC guidelines that had reached hemodynamic stability without the use of inotropes. All the patients were submitted to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) hemodynamic monitoring at ICU entry. Subclinical cardiac dysfunction was defined as a TPTD-derived cardiac function index (CFI) ≤ 4.5 min−1.ResultsAt ICU admission, subclinical cardiac dysfunction was present in 17/40 patients (42%; CFI 3.6 ± 0.7 min−1 vs 6.6 ± 1.9 min−1; p < 0.01). Compared with patients with normal CFI, these patients had been resuscitate with more fluids (crystalloids 57 ± 10 vs 47 ± 9 ml/kg PBW; p < 0.01) and vasopressors (norepinephrine 0.65 ± 0.25 vs 0.43 ± 0.29 mcg/kg/min; p < 0.05). At ICU admission these patients had lower cardiac index (2.2 ± 0.6 vs 3.6 ± 0.9 L/min/m2, p < 0.01) and higher systemic vascular resistances (2721 ± 860 vs 1532 ± 480 dyn*s*cm−5/m2, p < 0.01).ConclusionsIn patients with septic shock resuscitated according to the SSC, we found that subclinical cardiac dysfunction may influence the approach to fluids and vasopressor administration during early resuscitation. Our data support the implementation of early, bedside assessment of cardiac function during early resuscitation of septic shock.

Hemodynamic management of septic shock: beyond the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

Although the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines provide standardized and generalized guidance, they are less individualized. This review focuses on recent updates in the hemodynamic management of septic shock. Monitoring and intervention for septic shock should be personalized according to the phase of shock. In the salvage phase, fluid resuscitation and vasopressors should be given to provide life-saving tissue perfusion. During the optimization phase, tissue perfusion should be optimized. In the stabilization and de-escalation phases, minimal fluid infusion and safe fluid removal should be performed, respectively, while preserving organ perfusion. There is controversy surrounding the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies after initial resuscitation. Fluid administration after initial resuscitation should depend upon the patient's fluid responsiveness and requires individualized management. A number of dynamic tests have been proposed to monitor fluid responsiveness, which can help clinicians decide whether to give fluid or not. The optimal timing for the initiation of vasopressor agents is unknown. Recent data suggest that early vasopressor initiation should be considered. Inotropes can be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered for refractory septic shock with severe cardiac systolic dysfunction.

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.

Alternatives to Hydrocortisone for Hemodynamic Support in Septic Shock Management Due to Medication Shortage.

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. Septic shock is when initial fluid resuscitation fails to increase the mean atrial pressure to greater than or equal to 65 mm Hg. The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend corticosteroids for vasopressor and fluid-refractory septic shock patients. Medication shortages can arise, and their etiologies include natural disasters, quality control issues, and manufacturing discontinuation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists announced a shortage of IV hydrocortisone. Methylprednisolone and dexamethasone are considered therapeutic alternatives to hydrocortisone. This commentary aims to guide clinicians on the alternative to hydrocortisone among septic shock patients due to medication shortage.

What is new and different in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide recommendations on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. This review discusses what is new or different in the 2021 SSC adult sepsis guidelines compared to 2016. The guidelines include new weak recommendations for use of balanced fluid over saline 0.9%, use of intravenous corticosteroids for septic shock when there is ongoing vasopressor requirement, and peripheral initiation of intravenous vasopressors over delaying initiation in order to obtain central venous access. As before, there is astrong recommendation to initiate antimicrobials within 1 h of sepsis and septic shock, but there are now additional recommendations when the diagnosis is uncertain. The recommendation for initial fluid resuscitation in septic shock of 30 mL/kg crystalloid has been downgraded from strong to weak. Finally, there are 12 new recommendations addressing long-term outcomes from sepsis, including strong recommendations to screen for economic and social support and to make referrals for follow-up where available; use shared decision-making in post-intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge planning; reconcile medications at both ICU and hospital discharge; provide information about sepsis and its sequelae in written and verbal hospital discharge summary; and to provide assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge.

Retracted: Knowledge of and Compliance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines among Anesthesiologists: A Nationwide Survey in China.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/1877166.].

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload

IntroductionIntravenous crystalloid fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the early intervention bundle for sepsis and septic shock, with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommending a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus...

Implementing Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: Improving Compliance With Lactate Measurement in the PICU.

Structured, quality improvement initiative. Single-center, 26-bed, quaternary-care PICU. All patients with PICU-onset severe sepsis/shock from December 2018 to December 2021. Creation of a multidisciplinary local sepsis improvement team, education program targeting frontline providers (nurse practitioners, resident physicians), and peer-to-peer nursing education program with feedback to key stakeholders. The primary outcome measure was compliance with obtaining a lactate measurement within 60 minutes of the onset of severe sepsis/shock originating in our PICU using a local Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes database and definitions. The process measure was time to first lactate measurement. Secondary outcomes included number of IV antibiotic days, number of vasoactive days, number of ICU days, and number of ventilator days. A total of 166 unique PICU-onset severe sepsis/shock events and 156 unique patients were included. One year after implementation of our first interventions with subsequent Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, overall compliance increased from 38% to 47% (24% improvement) and time to first lactate decreased from 175 to 94 minutes (46% improvement). Using a statistical process control I chart, the preshift mean for time to first lactate measurement was noted to be 179 minutes and the postshift mean was noted to be 81 minutes demonstrating a 55% improvement. This multidisciplinary approach led to improvement in time to first lactate measurement, an important step toward attaining our target of lactate measurement within 60 minutes of septic shock identification. Improving compliance is necessary for understanding implications of the 2020 pSSC guidelines on sepsis morbidity and mortality.

Association between the timing of ICU admission and mortality in patients with hospital-onset sepsis: a nationwide prospective cohort study

BackgroundBased on sparse evidence, the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline suggests that critically ill patients with sepsis be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 6 h. However, limited ICU bed availability often makes immediate transfer difficult, and it is unclear whether all patients will benefit from early admission to the ICU. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the association between the timing of ICU admission and mortality in patients with hospital-onset sepsis.MethodsThis nationwide prospective cohort study analyzed patients with hospital-onset sepsis admitted to the ICUs of 19 tertiary hospitals between September 2019 and December 2020. ICU admission was classified as either early (within 6 h) or delayed (beyond 6 h). The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was compared using logistic regression adjusted for key prognostic factors in the unmatched and 1:1 propensity-score-matched cohorts. Subgroup and interaction analyses assessed whether in-hospital mortality varied according to baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 470 and 286 patients were included in the early and delayed admission groups, respectively. Early admission to the ICU did not significantly result in lower in-hospital mortality in both the unmatched (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–1.85) and matched cohorts (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.94–2.02). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with increasing lactate levels (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.37–3.23; P for interaction = 0.003), septic shock (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.31–3.22; P for interaction = 0.019), and those who needed mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.24–2.96; P for interaction = 0.027) or vasopressor support (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17–2.44; P for interaction = 0.042) on the day of ICU admission had a higher risk of mortality with delayed admission.ConclusionsAmong patients with hospital-onset sepsis, in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between those with early and delayed ICU admission. However, as early intensive care may benefit those with increasing lactate levels, septic shock, and those who require vasopressors or ventilatory support, admission to the ICU within 6 h should be considered for these subsets of patients.