OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a significant problem. The differences between patients with sepsis who walk into the emergency department (ED) and those who are transported via emergency medical services (EMS) have not been clarified. The aim of the study was to determine whether there was a difference in outcome between patients arriving by EMS and those presenting directly to the ED. METHODS: We prospectively collected and reviewed a cohort of all cases of severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to the medical intensive care unit from the ED from November 2009 to March 2012. Extracted data were basic demographic information (including mode of ED arrival), clinical data, and treatments. We calculated Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. The primary outcome was mortality in severely ill patients with sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 378 subjects (78%) presented by EMS and 107 subjects were walk-in patients (22%). Patients transported via EMS were older (P < 0.01), had fewer lactates >4 (P < 0.02), a more altered mental status (P < 0.01), and higher respiratory rates (P < 0.05) than did walk-in patients. Patients transported by EMS had worse disease severity when measured by an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (P < 0.01) but not by SOFA score. EMS patients had a shorter time to receiving antibiotics (P = 0.02) and central line placement (P < 0.01) than did walk-in patients. In a logistic model, mortality was associated with increasing age (adjusted odds ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.4), higher first-measured ED lactates (1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2), and increased initial SOFA score (adjusted odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3) but not EMS arrival or prehospital fluids. CONCLUSIONS: Neither arrival by EMS nor fluid administration by EMS is associated with decreased mortality in severe sepsis.
OBJECTIVES:Sepsis is a significant problem. The differences between patients with sepsis who walk into the emergency department (ED) and those who are transported via emergency medical services (EMS) have not been clarified. The aim of the study was to determine whether there was a difference in outcome between patients arriving by EMS and those presenting directly to the ED. METHODS: We prospectively collected and reviewed a cohort of all cases of severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to the medical intensive care unit from the ED from November 2009 to March 2012. Extracted data were basic demographic information (including mode of ED arrival), clinical data, and treatments. We calculated Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. The primary outcome was mortality in severely ill patients with sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 378 subjects (78%) presented by EMS and 107 subjects were walk-in patients (22%). Patients transported via EMS were older (P < 0.01), had fewer lactates >4 (P < 0.02), a more altered mental status (P < 0.01), and higher respiratory rates (P < 0.05) than did walk-in patients. Patients transported by EMS had worse disease severity when measured by an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (P < 0.01) but not by SOFA score. EMS patients had a shorter time to receiving antibiotics (P = 0.02) and central line placement (P < 0.01) than did walk-in patients. In a logistic model, mortality was associated with increasing age (adjusted odds ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.4), higher first-measured ED lactates (1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2), and increased initial SOFA score (adjusted odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3) but not EMS arrival or prehospital fluids. CONCLUSIONS: Neither arrival by EMS nor fluid administration by EMS is associated with decreased mortality in severe sepsis.
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E P Rivers; M Katranji; K A Jaehne; S Brown; G Abou Dagher; C Cannon; V Coba Journal: Minerva Anestesiol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.051
Authors: Roger A Band; David F Gaieski; Julie H Hylton; Frances S Shofer; Munish Goyal; Zachary F Meisel Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Roger A Band; Colin R Cooke; Mark E Mikkelsen; Julie Hylton; Tom D Rea; Christopher H Goss; David F Gaieski Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Alan E Jones; Nathan I Shapiro; Stephen Trzeciak; Ryan C Arnold; Heather A Claremont; Jeffrey A Kline Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ithan D Peltan; Kristina H Mitchell; Kristina E Rudd; Blake A Mann; David J Carlbom; Thomas D Rea; Allison M Butler; Catherine L Hough; Samuel M Brown Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-12
Authors: Donald M Yealy; David T Huang; Anthony Delaney; Marian Knight; Adrienne G Randolph; Ron Daniels; Tim Nutbeam Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Michael A Smyth; Daniel Gallacher; Peter K Kimani; Mark Ragoo; Matthew Ward; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Joseph Varney; Karam R Motawea; Omneya A Kandil; Hashim T Hashim; Kimberly Murry; Jaffer Shah; Ahmed Shaheen; Joy Akwari; Ahmed K Awad; Amanda Rivera; Mostafa R Mostafa; Sarya Swed; Dina M Awad Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Ulrika Margareta Wallgren; Eric Larsson; Anna Su; Jennifer Short; Hans Järnbert-Pettersson; Lisa Kurland Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2021-12-20