OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the impact that implementing an in-hospital protocol for the early detection of sepsis risk has on mortality from severe sepsis/septic shock. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in 2 phases at 2 general hospitals in Brazil. In phase I, patients with severe sepsis/septic shock were identified and treated in accordance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Over the subsequent 12 months (phase II), patients with severe sepsis/septic shock were identified by means of active surveillance for signs of sepsis risk (SSR). We compared the 2 cohorts in terms of demographic variables, the time required for the identification of at least 2 SSRs, compliance with sepsis bundles (6- and 24-hour), and mortality rates. RESULTS: We identified 217 patients with severe sepsis/septic shock (102 during phase I and 115 during phase II). There were significant differences between phases I and II in terms of the time required for the identification of at least 2 SSRs (34 ± 48 vs 11 ± 17 hours; P < .001) and in terms of in-hospital mortality (61.7% vs 38.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The early detection of sepsis promoted early treatment, reducing in-hospital mortality from severe sepsis/septic shock.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the impact that implementing an in-hospital protocol for the early detection of sepsis risk has on mortality from severe sepsis/septic shock. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in 2 phases at 2 general hospitals in Brazil. In phase I, patients with severe sepsis/septic shock were identified and treated in accordance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Over the subsequent 12 months (phase II), patients with severe sepsis/septic shock were identified by means of active surveillance for signs of sepsis risk (SSR). We compared the 2 cohorts in terms of demographic variables, the time required for the identification of at least 2 SSRs, compliance with sepsis bundles (6- and 24-hour), and mortality rates. RESULTS: We identified 217 patients with severe sepsis/septic shock (102 during phase I and 115 during phase II). There were significant differences between phases I and II in terms of the time required for the identification of at least 2 SSRs (34 ± 48 vs 11 ± 17 hours; P < .001) and in terms of in-hospital mortality (61.7% vs 38.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The early detection of sepsis promoted early treatment, reducing in-hospital mortality from severe sepsis/septic shock.
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
Authors: Javed I Memon; Rifat S Rehmani; Abdulsalam M Alaithan; Ayman El Gammal; Talib M Lone; Khaled Ghorab; Abdulsaboor Abdulbasir Journal: Crit Care Res Pract Date: 2012-10-03
Authors: Shevin T Jacob; Matthew Lim; Patrick Banura; Satish Bhagwanjee; Julian Bion; Allen C Cheng; Hillary Cohen; Jeremy Farrar; Sandy Gove; Philip Hopewell; Christopher C Moore; Cathy Roth; T Eoin West Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 8.775