Hour-1 bundle adherence was associated with reduction of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend a 1-hour window for completion of a sepsis care bundle; however, the effectiveness of the hour-1 bundle has not been fully evaluated. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of hour-1 bundle completion on clinical outcomes in sepsis patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 17 intensive care units in tertiary hospitals in Japan. We included all adult patients who were diagnosed as having sepsis by Sepsis-3 and admitted to intensive care units from July 2019 to August 2020. Impacts of hour-1 bundle adherence and delay of adherence on risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality were estimated by multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The final study cohort included 178 patients with sepsis. Among them, 89 received bundle-adherent care. Completion rates of each component (measure lactate level, obtain blood cultures, administer broad-spectrum antibiotics, administer crystalloid, apply vasopressors) within 1 hour were 98.9%, 86.2%, 51.1%, 94.9%, and 69.1%, respectively. Completion rate of all components within 1 hour was 50%. In-hospital mortality was 18.0% in the patients with and 30.3% in the patients without bundle-adherent care (p = 0.054). The adjusted odds ratio of non-bundle-adherent versus bundle-adherent care for in-hospital mortality was 2.32 (95% CI 1.09-4.95) using propensity scoring. Non-adherence to obtaining blood cultures and administering broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1 hour was related to in-hospital mortality (2.65 [95% CI 1.25-5.62] and 4.81 [95% CI 1.38-16.72], respectively). The adjusted odds ratio for 1-hour delay in achieving hour-1 bundle components for in-hospital mortality was 1.28 (95% CI 1.04-1.57) by logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Completion of the hour-1 bundle was associated with lower in-hospital mortality. Obtaining blood cultures and administering antibiotics within 1 hour may have been the components most contributing to decreased in-hospital mortality.

Use of glucocorticoids megadoses in SARS-CoV-2 infection in a spanish registry: SEMI-COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. METHODS: Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. RESULTS: Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59-79] vs 73 years [IQR 61-83]; p < .001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91-2.24 p < .001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.80; p < .001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p .298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p < .001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID induced sepsis survival.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on health care systems worldwide, which has led to increased mortality of different diseases like myocardial infarction. This is most likely due to three factors. First, an increased workload per nurse ratio, a factor associated with mortality. Second, patients presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms are isolated, which also decreases survival in cases of emergency. And third, patients hesitate to see a doctor or present themselves at a hospital. To assess if this is also true for sepsis patients, we asked whether non-COVID-19 sepsis patients had an increased 30-day mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the SepsisDataNet.NRW study, a multicentric, prospective study that includes septic patients fulfilling the SEPSIS-3 criteria. Within this study, we compared the 30-day mortality and disease severity of patients recruited pre-pandemic (recruited from March 2018 until February 2020) with non-COVID-19 septic patients recruited during the pandemic (recruited from March 2020 till December 2020). RESULTS: Comparing septic patients recruited before the pandemic to those recruited during the pandemic, we found an increased raw 30-day mortality in sepsis-patients recruited during the pandemic (33% vs. 52%, p = 0.004). We also found a significant difference in the severity of disease at recruitment (SOFA score pre-pandemic: 8 (5 - 11) vs. pandemic: 10 (8 - 13); p < 0.001). When adjusted for this, the 30-day mortality rates were not significantly different between the two groups (52% vs. 52% pre-pandemic and pandemic, p = 0.798). CONCLUSIONS: This led us to believe that the higher mortality of non-COVID19 sepsis patients during the pandemic might be attributed to a more severe septic disease at the time of recruitment. We note that patients may experience a delayed admission, as indicated by elevated SOFA scores. This could explain the higher mortality during the pandemic and we found no evidence for a diminished quality of care for critically ill sepsis patients in German intensive care units.

[Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Germany. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland. Ergebnisse eines systematischen Reviews mit Metaanalyse.

BACKGROUND: The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009. CONCLUSION: Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.

Fulminant Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome in Breakthrough COVID 19 Infection.

COVID 19 infection continues to afflict people worldwide. Neurological complications of COVID infection are common. We report a case of fulminant reversible cerebrovascular constriction syndrome (RCVS) in a patient with breakthrough COVID 19 infection who was fully vaccinated. A 64 year old lady, fully vaccinated 2 months back, presented with headache, drowsiness, partial seizures, visual impairment and quadriplegia. Her nasopharyngeal swab was tested positive for SARS COV2 on real time PCR assay. MRI brain FLAIR images showed multifocal hyperintensities with MR angiogram showing arterial vasoconstriction suggestive of RCVS. Despite initiation of nimodipine, patient's symptoms worsened and she succumbed to sepsis. RCVS following COVID infection has been reported to have a benign outcome. However, despite vaccination, fulminant RCVS following a breakthrough COVID infection was observed in our patient.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 as Cause of Viral Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a heterogeneous disease most frequently causing respiratory tract infection, which can induce respiratory failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in its severe forms. The prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis is still unclear; we aimed to describe this in a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched based on a prespecified protocol (International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews: CRD42020202018). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosed with sepsis according to sepsis-3 or according to the presence of infection-related organ dysfunctions necessitating organ support/replacement were included in the analysis. The primary end point was prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis among adults hospitalized in the ICU and the general ward. Among secondary end points were the need for ICU admission among patients initially hospitalized in the general ward and the prevalence of new onset of organ dysfunction in the ICU. Outcomes were expressed as proportions with respective 95% CI. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened and reviewed existing literature and assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Methodological index for nonrandomized studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 3,825 articles, 151 were analyzed, only five of which directly reported sepsis prevalence. Noting the high heterogeneity observed, coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis prevalence was 77.9% (95% CI, 75.9-79.8; I2 = 91%; 57 studies) in the ICU, and 33.3% (95% CI, 30.3-36.4; I2 = 99%; 86 studies) in the general ward. ICU admission was required for 17.7% (95% CI, 12.9-23.6; I2 = 100%) of ward patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was the most common organ dysfunction in the ICU (87.5%; 95% CI, 83.3-90.7; I2 = 98%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized in the ICU meet Sepsis-3 criteria and present infection-associated organ dysfunction. The medical and scientific community should be aware and systematically report viral sepsis for prognostic and treatment implications.

An observational cohort study of the performance of the REDS score compared to the SIRS criteria, NEWS2, CURB65, SOFA, MEDS and PIRO scores to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the Risk-stratification of Emergency Department suspected Sepsis (REDS) score to the SIRS criteria, NEWS2, CURB65, SOFA, MEDS and PIRO scores, to risk-stratify Emergency Department (ED) suspected sepsis patients for mortality. METHOD: A retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected data. Adult patients admitted from the ED after receiving intravenous antibiotics for suspected sepsis in the year 2020, were studied. Patients with COVID-19 were excluded. The scores stated above were calculated for each patient. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for each score for the primary outcome measure, all-cause in-hospital mortality. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves and cut-off points were identified by the statistical software. Scores above the cut-off point were deemed high-risk. The test characteristics of the high-risk groups were calculated. Comparisons were based on the AUROC curve and sensitivity for mortality of the high-risk groups. Previously published cut-off points were also studied. Calibration was also studied. RESULTS: Of the 2594 patients studied, 332 (12.8%) died. The AUROC curve for the REDS score 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.75) was significantly greater than the AUROC curve for the SIRS criteria 0.51 (95% CI 0.49-0.53), p < .0001 and the NEWS2 score 0.69 (95% CI 0.67-0.70), p = .005, and similar to all other scores studied. Sensitivity for mortality at the respective cut-off points identified (REDS ≥3, NEWS2 ≥ 8, CURB65 ≥ 3, SOFA ≥3, MEDS ≥10 and PIRO ≥10) was greatest for the REDS score at 80.1% (95% CI 75.4-84.3) and significantly greater than the other scores. The sensitivity for mortality for an increase of two points from baseline in the SOFA score was 63% (95% CI 57.5-68.2). CONCLUSIONS: In this single centre study, the REDS score had either a greater AUROC curve or sensitivity for mortality compared to the comparator scores, at the respective cut-off points identified.KEY MESSAGESThe REDS score is a simple and objective scoring system to risk-stratify for mortality in emergency department (MED) patients with suspected sepsis.The REDS score is better or equivalent to existing scoring systems in its discrimination for mortality.

Synthetic hydrogel nanoparticles for sepsis therapy.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by the extreme release of inflammatory mediators into the blood in response to infection (e.g., bacterial infection, COVID-19), resulting in the dysfunction of multiple organs. Currently, there is no direct treatment for sepsis. Here we report an abiotic hydrogel nanoparticle (HNP) as a potential therapeutic agent for late-stage sepsis. The HNP captures and neutralizes all variants of histones, a major inflammatory mediator released during sepsis. The highly optimized HNP has high capacity and long-term circulation capability for the selective sequestration and neutralization of histones. Intravenous injection of the HNP protects mice against a lethal dose of histones through the inhibition of platelet aggregation and migration into the lungs. In vivo administration in murine sepsis model mice results in near complete survival. These results establish the potential for synthetic, nonbiological polymer hydrogel sequestrants as a new intervention strategy for sepsis therapy and adds to our understanding of the importance of histones to this condition.

Estimates of gene ensemble noise highlight critical pathways and predict disease severity in H1N1, COVID-19 and mortality in sepsis patients.

Finding novel biomarkers for human pathologies and predicting clinical outcomes for patients is challenging. This stems from the heterogeneous response of individuals to disease and is reflected in the inter-individual variability of gene expression responses that obscures differential gene expression analysis. Here, we developed an alternative approach that could be applied to dissect the disease-associated molecular changes. We define gene ensemble noise as a measure that represents a variance for a collection of genes encoding for either members of known biological pathways or subunits of annotated protein complexes and calculated within an individual. The gene ensemble noise allows for the holistic identification and interpretation of gene expression disbalance on the level of gene networks and systems. By comparing gene expression data from COVID-19, H1N1, and sepsis patients we identified common disturbances in a number of pathways and protein complexes relevant to the sepsis pathology. Among others, these include the mitochondrial respiratory chain complex I and peroxisomes. This suggests a Warburg effect and oxidative stress as common hallmarks of the immune host-pathogen response. Finally, we showed that gene ensemble noise could successfully be applied for the prediction of clinical outcome namely, the mortality of patients. Thus, we conclude that gene ensemble noise represents a promising approach for the investigation of molecular mechanisms of pathology through a prism of alterations in the coherent expression of gene circuits.

Emergency department visits for emergent conditions among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) visits have declined while excess mortality, not attributable to COVID-19, has grown. It is not known whether older adults are accessing emergency care differently from their younger counterparts. Our objective was to determine patterns of ED visit counts for emergent conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic for older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Observational analysis of ED sites enrolled in a national clinical quality registry. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty-four ED sites in 33 states from January 1, 2019 to November 15, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We measured daily ED visit counts for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, sepsis, fall, and hip fracture, as well as deaths in the ED, by age categories. We estimated Poisson regression models comparing early and post-early pandemic periods (defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to the pre-pandemic period. We report incident rate ratios to summarize changes in visit incidence. RESULTS: For AMI, stroke, and sepsis, the older (75-84) and oldest old (85+ years) had the greatest decline in visit counts initially and the smallest recovery in the post-early pandemic periods. For falls, visits declined early and partially recovered uniformly across age categories. In contrast, hip fractures exhibited less change in visit rates across time periods. Deaths in the ED increased during the early pandemic period, but then fell and were persistently lower than baseline, especially for the older (75-84) and oldest old (85+ years). CONCLUSIONS: The decline in ED visits for emergent conditions among older adults has been more pronounced and persistent than for younger patients, with fewer deaths in the ED. This is concerning given the greater prevalence and risk of poor outcomes for emergent conditions in this age group that are amenable to time-sensitive ED diagnosis and treatment, and may in part explain excess mortality during the COVID-19 era among older adults.

Integration of heparin-binding protein and interleukin-6 in the early prediction of respiratory failure and mortality in pneumonia by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

Recent publications on the probable role of heparin-binding protein (HBP) as a biomarker in sepsis prompted us to investigate its diagnostic and prognostic performance in severe COVID-19. HBP and IL-6 were measured by immunoassays at admission and on day 7 in 178 patients with pneumonia by SARS-CoV-2. Patients were classified into non-sepsis and sepsis as per the Sepsis-3 definitions and were followed up for the development of severe respiratory failure (SRF) and for outcome. Results were confirmed by multivariate analyses. HBP was significantly higher in patients classified as having sepsis and was negatively associated with the oxygenation ratio and positively associated with creatinine and lactate. Logistic regression analysis evidenced admission HBP more than 18 ng/ml and IL-6 more than 30 pg/ml as independent risk factors for the development of SRP. Their integration prognosticated SRF with respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive 59.1%, 96.3%, 83.9%, and 87.8%. Cox regression analysis evidenced admission HBP more than 35 ng/ml and IL-6 more than 30 pg/ml as independent risk factors for 28-day mortality. Their integration prognosticated 28-day mortality with respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value 69.2%, 92.7%, 42.9%, and 97.5%. HBP remained unchanged over-time course. A prediction score of the disposition of patients with COVID-19 is proposed taking into consideration admission levels of IL-6 and HBP. Using different cut-offs, the score may predict the likelihood for SRF and for 28-day outcome.

Association between Prolonged Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy and All-Cause Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Undergoing Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The mortality rate of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was high. We aimed to assess the association between prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT) and mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation between February 12 and March 2, 2020. All patients were followed until death or March 28, and all survivors were followed for at least 30 days. RESULTS: For 36 hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the mean age was 69.4 (±10.8) years, and 30 patients (83.3%) were men. Twenty-two (61.1%) patients received PIRRT (PIRRT group), and 14 cases (38.9%) were managed with conventional strategy (non-PIRRT group). There were no differences in age, sex, comorbidities, complications, treatments, and most of the laboratory findings. During the median follow-up period of 9.5 (interquartile range 4.3-33.5) days, 13 of 22 (59.1%) patients in the PIRRT group and 11 of 14 (78.6%) patients in the non-PIRRT group died. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated prolonged survival in patients in the PIRRT group compared with that in the non-PIRRT group (p = 0.042). The association between PIRRT and a reduced risk of mortality remained significant in 3 different models, with adjusted hazard ratios varying from 0.332 to 0.398. Increased IL-2 receptor, TNF-α, procalcitonin, prothrombin time, and NT-proBNP levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with PIRRT. CONCLUSION: PIRRT may be beneficial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with invasive mechanical ventilation. Further prospective multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Utility of established prognostic scores in COVID-19 hospital admissions: multicentre prospective evaluation of CURB-65, NEWS2 and qSOFA.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, yet, due to the lack of a COVID-19-specific tool, clinicians must use pre-existing illness severity scores for initial prognostication. However, the validity of such scores in COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: The North West Collaborative Organisation for Respiratory Research performed a multicentre prospective evaluation of adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed COVID-19 during a 2-week period in April 2020. Clinical variables measured as part of usual care at presentation to the hospital were recorded, including the Confusion, Urea, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age Above or Below 65 Years (CURB-65), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Data were collected for 830 people with COVID-19 admitted across seven hospitals. By 30 days, a total of 300 (36.1%) had died and 142 (17.1%) had been in the intensive care unit. All scores underestimated mortality compared with pre-COVID-19 cohorts, and overall prognostic performance was generally poor. Among the 'low-risk' categories (CURB-65 score<2, NEWS2<5 and qSOFA score<2), 30-day mortality was 16.7%, 32.9% and 21.4%, respectively. NEWS2≥5 had a negative predictive value of 98% for early mortality. Multivariable logistic regression identified features of respiratory compromise rather than circulatory collapse as most relevant prognostic variables. CONCLUSION: In the setting of COVID-19, existing prognostic scores underestimated risk. The design of new prognostic tools should focus on features of respiratory compromise rather than circulatory collapse. We provide a baseline set of variables which are relevant to COVID-19 outcomes and may be used as a basis for developing a bespoke COVID-19 prognostication tool.

Coronavirus (Covid-19) sepsis: revisiting mitochondrial dysfunction in pathogenesis, aging, inflammation, and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Decline in mitochondrial function occurs with aging and may increase mortality. We discuss mitochondrial contribution to Covid-19 sepsis, specifically the complex interaction of innate immune function, viral replication, hyper-inflammatory state, and HIF-α/Sirtuin pathways. METHODS: Articles from PubMed/Medline searches were reviewed using the combination of terms "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, sepsis, mitochondria, aging, and immunometabolism". RESULTS: Evidence indicates that mitochondria in senescent cells may be dysfunctional and unable to keep up with hypermetabolic demands associated with Covid-19 sepsis. Mitochondrial proteins may serve as damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) activating innate immunity. Disruption in normal oxidative phosphorylation pathways contributes to elevated ROS which activates sepsis cascade through HIF-α/Sirtuin pathway. Viral-mitochondrial interaction may be necessary for replication and increased viral load. Hypoxia and hyper-inflammatory state contribute to increased mortality associated with Covid-19 sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Aging is associated with worse outcomes in sepsis. Modulating Sirtuin activity is emerging as therapeutic agent in sepsis. HIF-α, levels of mitochondrial DNA, and other mitochondrial DAMP molecules may also serve as useful biomarker and need to be investigated. These mechanisms should be explored specifically for Covid-19-related sepsis. Understanding newly discovered regulatory mechanisms may lead to the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic targets.