BACKGROUND: Patients identified with sepsis in the emergency department often are treated on the basis of the presumption of infection; however, various noninfectious conditions that require specific treatments have clinical presentations very similar to that of sepsis. Our aim was to describe the etiology of illness in patients identified and treated for severe sepsis in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients treated with goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis in the emergency department. Inclusion criteria were suspected infection, 2 or more criteria for systemic inflammation, and evidence of hypoperfusion. Exclusion criteria were age of <18 years and the need for immediate surgery. Clinical data on eligible patients were prospectively collected for 2 years. Blinded observers used a priori definitions to determine the final cause of hospitalization. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were enrolled; 95 (45%) had positive culture results, and 116 (55%) had negative culture results. The overall mortality rate was 19%. Patients with positive culture results were more likely to have indwelling vascular lines (P = .03), be residents of nursing homes (P = .04), and have a shorter time to administration of antibiotics in the emergency department (83 vs 97 min; P = .03). Of patients with negative culture results, 44% had clinical infections, 8% had atypical infections, 32% had noninfectious mimics, and 16% had an illness of indeterminate etiology. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that >50% of patients identified and treated for severe sepsis in the emergency department had negative culture results. Of patients identified with a sepsis syndrome at presentation, 18% had a noninfectious diagnosis that mimicked sepsis, and the clinical characteristics of these patients were similar to those of patients with culture-positive sepsis.
BACKGROUND:Patients identified with sepsis in the emergency department often are treated on the basis of the presumption of infection; however, various noninfectious conditions that require specific treatments have clinical presentations very similar to that of sepsis. Our aim was to describe the etiology of illness in patients identified and treated for severe sepsis in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients treated with goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis in the emergency department. Inclusion criteria were suspected infection, 2 or more criteria for systemic inflammation, and evidence of hypoperfusion. Exclusion criteria were age of <18 years and the need for immediate surgery. Clinical data on eligible patients were prospectively collected for 2 years. Blinded observers used a priori definitions to determine the final cause of hospitalization. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were enrolled; 95 (45%) had positive culture results, and 116 (55%) had negative culture results. The overall mortality rate was 19%. Patients with positive culture results were more likely to have indwelling vascular lines (P = .03), be residents of nursing homes (P = .04), and have a shorter time to administration of antibiotics in the emergency department (83 vs 97 min; P = .03). Of patients with negative culture results, 44% had clinical infections, 8% had atypical infections, 32% had noninfectious mimics, and 16% had an illness of indeterminate etiology. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that >50% of patients identified and treated for severe sepsis in the emergency department had negative culture results. Of patients identified with a sepsis syndrome at presentation, 18% had a noninfectious diagnosis that mimicked sepsis, and the clinical characteristics of these patients were similar to those of patients with culture-positive sepsis.
Authors: Scott T Micek; Nareg Roubinian; Tim Heuring; Meghan Bode; Jennifer Williams; Courtney Harrison; Theresa Murphy; Donna Prentice; Brent E Ruoff; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Corinne Alberti; Christian Brun-Buisson; Sergey V Goodman; Daniela Guidici; John Granton; Rui Moreno; Mark Smithies; Oliver Thomas; Antonio Artigas; Jean Roger Le Gall Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nathan I Shapiro; Michael D Howell; Daniel Talmor; Dermot Lahey; Long Ngo; Jon Buras; Richard E Wolfe; J Woodrow Weiss; Alan Lisbon Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Stephen Trzeciak; R Phillip Dellinger; Nicole L Abate; Robert M Cowan; Mary Stauss; J Hope Kilgannon; Sergio Zanotti; Joseph E Parrillo Journal: Chest Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael A Puskarich; Stephen Trzeciak; Nathan I Shapiro; Ryan C Arnold; James M Horton; Jonathan R Studnek; Jeffrey A Kline; Alan E Jones Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ephraim L Tsalik; L Brett Jaggers; Seth W Glickman; Raymond J Langley; Jennifer C van Velkinburgh; Lawrence P Park; Vance G Fowler; Charles B Cairns; Stephen F Kingsmore; Christopher W Woods Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: F Mearelli; D Orso; N Fiotti; N Altamura; A Breglia; M De Nardo; I Paoli; M Zanetti; C Casarsa; G Biolo Journal: Infection Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Jordan L Kennedy; Dana L Haberling; Chaorui C Huang; Fernanda C Lessa; David E Lucero; Demetre C Daskalakis; Neil M Vora Journal: Chest Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 9.410