Literature DB >> 20678676

Impact of the implementation of a sepsis protocol for the management of fluid-refractory septic shock: A single-center, before-and-after study.

Payal K Gurnani1, Gourang P Patel, Christopher W Crank, Dana Vais, Omar Lateef, Sergey Akimov, Robert Balk, David Simon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines have been published for the acute management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Key goals of institution-driven protocols include timely fluid resuscitation and antibiotic selection, as well as source control.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the impact of a sepsis protocol on the timeliness of antibiotic administration, the adequacy of fluid resuscitation, and 28-day mortality in patients with fluid-refractory septic shock.
METHODS: This was a single-center, before-and-after study (18 months before July 2007 and 18 months after) with prospective data collection evaluating the outcomes of a sepsis protocol in adult patients with fluid-refractory septic shock. All patients received a fluid challenge and antibiotics; those who did not were excluded from this analysis. Preprotocol findings led to the development of the sepsis protocol, which emphasized fluid resuscitation, timely administration of antibiotic therapy, and collection of specimens for culture at the onset of septic shock. In the pre- and postprotocol phases of the study, data were collected prospectively and analyzed for demographic characteristics; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score; appropriateness of fluid resuscitation; antibiotic use; number of vasopressor, ventilator, and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and 28-day mortality. Outcomes were measured prospectively at any time during the patient's hospital admission. The primary end points were the time to administration of antimicrobial therapy and the appropriateness of fluid resuscitation before and after implementation of the sepsis protocol.
RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included in the analysis: 64 and 54 in the pre- and postprotocol groups, respectively. Patients in the preprotocol group were primarily women (53% [34/64]) and had a mean (SD) age of 61 (15.5) years and a mean APACHE II score of 28 (6.0). Patients in the postprotocol group were primarily men (54% [29/54]) and had a mean age of 52 (18.0) years and a mean APACHE II score of 27 (6.4). Implementation of the sepsis protocol resulted in a greater percentage of patients receiving timely antibiotic therapy (ie, within 4.5 hours of refractory shock; 85% [46/54] vs 56% [36/64]; P = 0.001) and adequate fluid resuscitation (72% [39/54] vs 31% [20/64]; P < 0.001) compared with the preprotocol group. Post hoc analysis found significant decreases in the number of vasopressor days (mean [SD], 3.8 [2.7] to 1.4 [1.5]; P < 0.001), ventilator days (9.1 [12.2] to 2.7 [4.0]; P < 0.001), and ICU days (12.3 [12.6] to 4.9 [3.9]; P < 0.001) in the postprotocol group. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the groups (survival 46% [28/61] before vs 54% [33/61] after the protocol). Multivariate analysis for predictors of in-hospital mortality identified an interval between shock and empiric antibiotic administration of >4.5 hours (odds ratio [OR] = 5.54; 95% CI, 1.91-16.07; P < 0.002), vasopressor duration in days (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59; P = 0.037), APACHE II score (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24; P = 0.003), and type of infection (community vs nosocomial, OR = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61; P = 0.006) as significant predictors. The 28-day mortality decreased from 61% (39/64) to 33% (18/54) after implementation of the protocol (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: Implementation of a sepsis protocol emphasizing early administration of antibiotic therapy and adequate fluid resuscitation was associated with improved clinical outcomes and lower 28-day mortality in patients with fluid-refractory septic shock at this institution. 2010 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20678676     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  12 in total

1.  Increased fluid administration in the first three hours of sepsis resuscitation is associated with reduced mortality: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sarah J Lee; Kannan Ramar; John G Park; Ognjen Gajic; Guangxi Li; Rahul Kashyap
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Clinical practice guidelines in the AANS/CNS Section on Tumors: past, present and future directions.

Authors:  Mark E Linskey; Jeffrey J Olson; Laura S Mitchell; Steven N Kalkanis
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 3.  Early management of sepsis with emphasis on early goal directed therapy: AME evidence series 002.

Authors:  Zhongheng Zhang; Yucai Hong; Nathan J Smischney; Han-Pin Kuo; Panagiotis Tsirigotis; Jordi Rello; Win Sen Kuan; Christian Jung; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Marc Leone; Herbert Spapen; David Grimaldi; Sven Van Poucke; Steven Q Simpson; Patrick M Honore; Stefan Hofer; Pietro Caironi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  An Electronic Tool for the Evaluation and Treatment of Sepsis in the ICU: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Matthew W Semler; Liza Weavind; Michael H Hooper; Todd W Rice; Supriya Srinivasa Gowda; Andras Nadas; Yanna Song; Jason B Martin; Gordon R Bernard; Arthur P Wheeler
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anna Maria Rusconi; Ilaria Bossi; James Geoffrey Lampard; Michael Szava-Kovats; Andrea Bellone; Eddy Lang
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  Why Not Life and Limb? Vasopressor Use in Intensive Care Unit Patients the Cause of Acute Limb Ischemia.

Authors:  Anastassia Newbury; Katharine D Harper; Arianna Trionfo; Frederick V Ramsey; Joseph J Thoder
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-08-03

7.  Pediatric sepsis: preparing for the future against a global scourge.

Authors:  Carley Riley; Rajit K Basu; Niranjan Kissoon; Derek S Wheeler
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.725

8.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.

Authors:  R P Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Elisa Damiani; Abele Donati; Giulia Serafini; Laura Rinaldi; Erica Adrario; Paolo Pelaia; Stefano Busani; Massimo Girardis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  An alternate pathophysiologic paradigm of sepsis and septic shock: implications for optimizing antimicrobial therapy.

Authors:  Anand Kumar
Journal:  Virulence       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 5.882

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.