Carmen C Polito1, Alex Isakov2, Arthur H Yancey2, Duncan K Wilson3, Blake A Anderson4, Ingrid Bloom2, Greg S Martin5, Jonathan E Sevransky5. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: cpolito@emory.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a predictive model and novel emergency medical services (EMS) screening tool for severe sepsis (SS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single EMS system and an urban, public hospital. PATIENTS: Sequential adult, nontrauma, nonarrest, at-risk, EMS-transported patients between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012 were included in the study. At-risk patients were defined as having all 3 of the following criteria present in the EMS setting: (1) heart rate greater than 90 beats/min, (2) respiratory rate greater than 20 beats/min, and (3) systolic blood pressure less than 110 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 66,439 EMS encounters, 555 met the criteria for analysis. Fourteen percent (n = 75) of patients had SS, of which 19% (n = 14) were identified by EMS clinical judgment. In-hospital mortality for patients with SS was 31% (n = 23). Six EMS characteristics were found to be predictors of SS: older age, transport from nursing home, Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) 9-1-1 chief concern category of "sick person," hot tactile temperature assessment, low systolic blood pressure, and low oxygen saturation. The final predictive model showed good discrimination in derivation and validation subgroups (areas under curves, 0.843 and 0.820, respectively). Sensitivity of the final model was 91% in the derivation group and 78% in the validation group. At a predefined threshold of 2 or more points, prehospital severe sepsis (PRESS) score sensitivity was 86%. CONCLUSIONS: The PRESS score is a novel EMS screening tool for SS that demonstrates a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 47%. Additional validation is needed before this tool can be recommended for widespread clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a predictive model and novel emergency medical services (EMS) screening tool for severe sepsis (SS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single EMS system and an urban, public hospital. PATIENTS: Sequential adult, nontrauma, nonarrest, at-risk, EMS-transported patients between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012 were included in the study. At-risk patients were defined as having all 3 of the following criteria present in the EMS setting: (1) heart rate greater than 90 beats/min, (2) respiratory rate greater than 20 beats/min, and (3) systolic blood pressure less than 110 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 66,439 EMS encounters, 555 met the criteria for analysis. Fourteen percent (n = 75) of patients had SS, of which 19% (n = 14) were identified by EMS clinical judgment. In-hospital mortality for patients with SS was 31% (n = 23). Six EMS characteristics were found to be predictors of SS: older age, transport from nursing home, Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) 9-1-1 chief concern category of "sick person," hot tactile temperature assessment, low systolic blood pressure, and low oxygen saturation. The final predictive model showed good discrimination in derivation and validation subgroups (areas under curves, 0.843 and 0.820, respectively). Sensitivity of the final model was 91% in the derivation group and 78% in the validation group. At a predefined threshold of 2 or more points, prehospital severe sepsis (PRESS) score sensitivity was 86%. CONCLUSIONS: The PRESS score is a novel EMS screening tool for SS that demonstrates a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 47%. Additional validation is needed before this tool can be recommended for widespread clinical use.
Authors: C Trillo-Alvarez; R Cartin-Ceba; D J Kor; M Kojicic; R Kashyap; S Thakur; L Thakur; V Herasevich; M Malinchoc; O Gajic Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Thomas D Rea; Jeremy M Kahn; Allan J Walkey; Donald M Yealy; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Donald M Yealy; John A Kellum; David T Huang; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Francis Pike; Thomas Terndrup; Henry E Wang; Peter C Hou; Frank LoVecchio; Michael R Filbin; Nathan I Shapiro; Derek C Angus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sandra L Peake; Anthony Delaney; Michael Bailey; Rinaldo Bellomo; Peter A Cameron; D James Cooper; Alisa M Higgins; Anna Holdgate; Belinda D Howe; Steven A R Webb; Patricia Williams Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Colin R Cooke; Susan R Heckbert; Michael K Copass; Donald M Yealy; John A Spertus; Thomas D Rea Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Robert S Green; Andrew H Travers; Edward Cain; Samuel G Campbell; Jan L Jensen; David A Petrie; Mete Erdogan; Gredi Patrick; Ward Patrick Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 1.112
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: Mark E Nunnally; Ricard Ferrer; Greg S Martin; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Flavia R Machado; Daniel De Backer; Craig M Coopersmith; Clifford S Deutschman Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2021-07-02