Safety of treating acute pulmonary embolism at home: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Home treatment is considered safe in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients selected by a validated triage tool (e.g. simplified PE severity index score or Hestia rule), but there is uncertainty regarding the applicability in underrepresented subgroups. The aim was to evaluate the safety of home treatment by performing an individual patient-level data meta-analysis. METHODS: Ten prospective cohort studies or randomized controlled trials were identified in a systematic search, totalling 2694 PE patients treated at home (discharged within 24 h) and identified by a predefined triage tool. The 14- and 30-day incidences of all-cause mortality and adverse events (combined endpoint of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and/or all-cause mortality) were evaluated. The relative risk (RR) for 14- and 30-day mortalities and adverse events is calculated in subgroups using a random effects model. RESULTS: The 14- and 30-day mortalities were 0.11% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0-0.24, I2 = 0) and 0.30% (95% CI 0.09-0.51, I2 = 0). The 14- and 30-day incidences of adverse events were 0.56% (95% CI 0.28-0.84, I2 = 0) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.79-1.6, I2 = 0). Cancer was associated with increased 30-day mortality [RR 4.9; 95% prediction interval (PI) 2.7-9.1; I2 = 0]. Pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (N-terminal pro-)B-type natriuretic peptide [(NT-pro)BNP] at presentation were associated with an increased incidence of 14-day adverse events [RR 3.5 (95% PI 1.5-7.9, I2 = 0), 2.5 (95% PI 1.3-4.9, I2 = 0), and 3.9 (95% PI 1.6-9.8, I2 = 0), respectively], but not mortality. At 30 days, cancer, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (NT-pro)BNP were associated with an increased incidence of adverse events [RR 2.7 (95% PI 1.4-5.2, I2 = 0), 2.9 (95% PI 1.5-5.7, I2 = 0), and 3.3 (95% PI 1.6-7.1, I2 = 0), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of adverse events in home-treated PE patients, selected by a validated triage tool, was very low. Patients with cancer had a three- to five-fold higher incidence of adverse events and death. Patients with increased troponin or (NT-pro)BNP had a three-fold higher risk of adverse events, driven by recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE: Sepsis care delivery - including initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials - remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: Determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. METHODS: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients presenting November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients presenting to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous controls. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses employed difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. RESULTS: Code Sepsis protocol activation (N=307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients meeting sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% CI 7-19-minute) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (p<0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148989) This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Post-discharge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized trauma patients: A retrospective comparison of patients receiving versus not receiving post-discharge prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in many trauma patients extends beyond hospitalization, but there is a paucity of evidence to guide the use of post-discharge prophylaxis (PDP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of trauma patients deemed moderate-to-high risk for VTE (risk assessment profile score [RAP] ≥5) who were prescribed PDP based on an internal clinical guideline assessing injury pattern and mobility status. PDP patients were compared with those that did not receive post-discharge prophylaxis (NPDP). RESULTS: 1512 patients were included. PDP group had higher mean RAP score (7.3 vs. 6.4, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), more likely to have a complex orthopedic fracture and underwent a longer median hospital (4.7 vs. 2.9 days, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). No difference between groups in 90-day VTE (11 [1.5 â€‹%] (PDP) vs. 8 [1.0 â€‹%] (NPDP), p â€‹= â€‹0.50), clinically relevant bleeding (p â€‹= â€‹0.58), or readmission (p â€‹= â€‹0.46). CONCLUSIONS: VTE incidence, clinically relevant bleeding, and readmission 90-days after hospital discharge were low and similar between PDP and NPDP groups. PDP prescribed in a presumably higher VTE risk trauma population may mitigate the long-term risk of VTE.

First steps toward a BIG change: A pilot study to implement the Brain Injury Guidelines across a 24-hospital system.

INTRODUCTION: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) support a subset of low-risk patients to be managed without repeat head computed tomography (RHCT), neurosurgical consult (NSC), or hospital transfer/admission. This pilot aimed to assess mBIG implementation at a single facility to inform future systemwide implementation. METHODS: Single cohort pilot trial at a level I trauma center, December 2021-August 2022. Adult patients included if tICH meeting BIG 1 or 2 criteria. BIG 3 patients excluded. RESULTS: No patients required neurosurgical intervention. 72 RHCT and 83 NSC were prevented. 21 isolated BIG 1 were safely discharged home from the ED. No hospital readmissions for tICH. Protocol adherence rate was 92%. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the mBIG at a single trauma center is feasible and optimizes resource utilization. This pilot study will inform an implementation trial of the mBIG across a 24-hospital integrated health system.

Clinically stable covid-19 patients presenting to acute unscheduled episodic care venues have increased risk of hospitalization: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessment for risks associated with acute stable COVID-19 is important to optimize clinical trial enrollment and target patients for scarce therapeutics. To assess whether healthcare system engagement location is an independent predictor of outcomes we performed a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention trial. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B trial that was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and August 2021. Participants were enrolled through acute unscheduled episodic care (AUEC) enrollment location (emergency department, or urgent care clinic visit) compared to minimal contact (MC) enrollment (electronic contact from test center lists of positive patients).We report the primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalizations, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic arterial thromboembolism, or death among stable outpatients stratified by enrollment setting, AUEC versus MC. A propensity score for AUEC enrollment was created, and Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to compare the primary outcome by enrollment location. RESULTS: Among the 657 ACTIV-4B patients randomized, 533 (81.1%) with known enrollment setting data were included in this analysis, 227 from AUEC settings and 306 from MC settings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from COVID test, age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and body mass index were associated with AUEC enrollment. Irrespective of trial treatment allocation, patients enrolled at an AUEC setting were 10-times more likely to suffer from the adjudicated primary outcome, 7.9% vs. 0.7%; p < 0.001, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Upon Cox regression analysis adjustment patients enrolled at an AUEC setting remained at significant risk of the primary composite outcome, HR 3.40 (95% CI 1.46, 7.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinically stable COVID-19 presenting to an AUEC enrollment setting represent a population at increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis complications, hospitalization for cardiopulmonary events, or death, when adjusted for other risk factors, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Future outpatient therapeutic trials and clinical therapeutic delivery programs of clinically stable COVID-19 patients may focus on inclusion of higher-risk patient populations from AUEC engagement locations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

The association between pulmonary artery enlargement and mortality in an Emergency Department population undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography.

Findings of an enlarged pulmonary artery diameter (PAd) and increased pulmonary artery to ascending aorta ratio (PA:AA) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) are associated with increased mortality in particular groups of patients with cardiopulmonary disease. However, the frequency and prognostic significance of these incidental findings has not been studied in unselected patients evaluated in the Emergency Department (ED). This study aims to determine the prevalence and associated prognosis of enlarged pulmonary artery measurements in an ED cohort. We measured PA and AA diameters on 990 CTPA studies performed in the ED. An enlarged PA diameter was defined as >27 mm in females and >29 mm in males, while an increased PA:AA was defined as >0.9. Poisson regression was performed to calculate prevalence ratios for relevant comorbidities, and multivariable Cox regression was performed to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for mortality of patients with enlarged pulmonary artery measurements. An enlarged PAd was observed in 27.9% of 990 patients and was more commonly observed in older patients and in patients with obesity or heart failure. Conversely, PA:AA was increased in 34.2% of subjects, and was more common in younger patients and those with peripheral vascular disease or obesity. After controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, both enlarged PAd (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.68, p = 0.05) and PA:AA (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31-2.22 p < 0.01) were independently associated with mortality. In sum, enlarged PAd and increased PA:AA are common in patients undergoing CTPAs in the ED setting and both are independently associated with mortality.

Concordance Between Initial Presumptive and Final Adjudicated Diagnoses of Infection Among Patients Meeting Sepsis-3 Criteria in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. METHODS: For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication.

Synoptic reporting accuracy for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism.

Background: Structured reporting is an efficient and replicable method of presenting diagnostic results that eliminates variability inherent in narrative descriptive reporting and may improve clinical decisions. Synoptic element reporting can generate discrete coded data that then may inform clinical decision support and trigger downstream actions in computerized electronic health records. Objective: Limited evidence exists for use of synoptic reporting for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography (CTPA) among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. We reported the accuracy of synoptic reporting for the outcome of pulmonary embolism among patients who presented to an integrated health care system with CTPA performed for suspected pulmonary embolism. Methods: Structured radiology reports with embedded synoptic elements were implemented for all CTPA examinations on March 1, 2018. Four hundred CTPA reports between January 4, 2019 and July 30, 2020 (200 reports each for which synoptic reporting recorded the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism [PE]) were selected at random. One non-diagnostic study was excluded from analysis. We then assessed the accuracy of synoptic reporting compared with the gold standard of manual chart review. Results: Synoptic reporting and manual review agreed in 99.2% of patients undergoing CTPA for suspected PE, agreed on the presence of PE in 196 of 199 (98.5%) cases, the absence of PE in 200 of 200 (100%) cases with a sensitivity of 87.6% (76.1-96.1) a specificity of 99.9% (99.7%-100%), a positive predictive value of 99.5% (98.1-100), and a negative predictive value of 98% (95.7%-99.5%). Conclusion: The overall rate of agreement was 99.2%, but we observed an unacceptable false-negative rate for clinical reliance on synoptic element reporting in isolation from dictated reports.

D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data. RESULTS: Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%-98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%-99.7%). CONCLUSION: A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.

Biomarker derived risk scores predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding among patients with COVID-19.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is increased in patients with COVID-19 infection. Understanding which patients are likely to develop VTE may inform pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis decision making. The hospital-associated venous thromboembolism-Intermountain Risk Score (HA-VTE IMRS) and the hospital-associated major bleeding-Intermountain Risk Score (HA-MB IMRS) are risk scores predictive of VTE and bleeding that were derived from only patient age and data found in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic panel (BMP). Objectives: We assessed the HA-VTE IMRS and HA-MB IMRS for predictiveness of 90-day VTE and major bleeding, respectively, among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, and further investigated if adding D-dimer improved these predictions. We also reported 30-day outcomes. Patients/Methods: We identified 5047 sequential patients with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a CBC and BMP between 2 days before and 7 days following the diagnosis of COVID-19 from March 12, 2020, to February 28, 2021. We calculated the HA-VTE IMRS and the HA-MB IMRS for all patients. We assessed the added predictiveness of D-dimer obtained within 48 hours of the COVID test. Results: The HA-VTE IMRS yielded a c-statistic of 0.70 for predicting 90-day VTE and adding D-dimer improved the c-statistic to 0.764 with the corollary sensitivity/specificity/positive/negative predictive values of 49.4%/75.7%/6.7%/97.7% and 58.8%/76.2%/10.9%/97.4%, respectively. Among hospitalized and ambulatory patients separately, the HA-VTE IMRS performed similarly. The HA-MB IMRS predictiveness for 90-day major bleeding yielded a c-statistic of 0.64. Conclusion: The HA-VTE IMRS and HA-MB IMRS predict 90- and 30-day VTE and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Adding D-dimer improved the predictiveness of the HA-VTE IMRS for VTE.

Order Substitutions and Education for Balanced Crystalloid Solution Use in an Integrated Health Care System and Association With Major Adverse Kidney Events.

Importance: Trials comparing balanced crystalloids with normal saline have yielded mixed results regarding reductions in kidney complications and mortality for hospitalized patients receiving intravenous fluids. Objective: To evaluate the association of a multifaceted implementation program encouraging the preferential use of lactated Ringer solution with patient outcomes and intravenous fluid-prescribing practices in a large, multilevel health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This type 2 hybrid implementation and comparative effectiveness study enrolled all patients 18 years or older who received 1 L or more of intravenous fluids while admitted to an emergency department and/or inpatient unit at 1 of 22 hospitals in Idaho and Utah between November 1, 2018, and February 29, 2020. An interrupted time series analysis was used to assess study outcomes before and after interventions to encourage use of lactated Ringer solution. Exposures: Implementation program combining order set modification, electronic order entry alerts, and sequential clinician-targeted education to encourage prescribing of lactated Ringer solution instead of normal saline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary implementation outcome was the patient-level proportion of intravenous fluids that was balanced crystalloids. The primary effectiveness outcome was the incidence of major adverse kidney events (MAKE30)-a composite of new persistent kidney dysfunction, new initiation of dialysis, and death-at 30 days. Results: Among 148 423 patients (median [IQR] age, 47 [30-67] years; 91 302 women [61%]), the proportion of total fluids received that was lactated Ringer solution increased from 28% to 75% in the first week vs the last week of the study (immediate implementation effect odds ratio [OR], 3.44; 95% CI, 2.79-4.24). The estimated MAKE30 absolute risk reduction was 2.2% (95% CI, 1.3%-3.3%) based on interrupted time series analysis showing a decrease in the week-on-week trend for MAKE30 (OR difference, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.03-0.03, P < .001). The immediate postimplementation OR for MAKE30 was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-1.01), with a decrease in persistent kidney dysfunction (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93) and mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but not dialysis (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76-1.32). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, an implementation program was associated with an increase in the proportion of fluids administered as lactated Ringer solution compared with normal saline and was associated with a reduction in MAKE30 events among patients treated in a large integrated health care system.

Simple scoring tool to estimate risk of hospitalization and mortality in ambulatory and emergency department patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Accurate methods of identifying patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of poor outcomes has become especially important with the advent of limited-availability therapies such as monoclonal antibodies. Here we describe development and validation of a simple but accurate scoring tool to classify risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: All consecutive patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 25-October 1, 2020 within the Intermountain Healthcare system were included. The cohort was randomly divided into 70% derivation and 30% validation cohorts. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted for 14-day hospitalization. The optimal model was then adapted to a simple, probabilistic score and applied to the validation cohort and evaluated for prediction of hospitalization and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 22,816 patients were included; mean age was 40 years, 50.1% were female and 44% identified as non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. 6.2% required hospitalization and 0.4% died. Criteria in the simple model included: age (0.5 points per decade); high-risk comorbidities (2 points each): diabetes mellitus, severe immunocompromised status and obesity (body mass index≥30); non-white race/Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (2 points), and 1 point each for: male sex, dyspnea, hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiac arrythmia, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic neurologic disease. In the derivation cohort (n = 16,030) area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.84) for hospitalization and 0.91 (0.83-0.94) for 28-day mortality; in the validation cohort (n = 6,786) AUROC for hospitalization was 0.8 (CI 0.78-0.82) and for mortality 0.8 (CI 0.69-0.9). CONCLUSION: A prediction score based on widely available patient attributes accurately risk stratifies patients with COVID-19 at the time of testing. Applications include patient selection for therapies targeted at preventing disease progression in non-hospitalized patients, including monoclonal antibodies. External validation in independent healthcare environments is needed.

Association of the Intermountain Risk Score with major adverse health events in patients positive for COVID-19: an observational evaluation of a US cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS), composed using published sex-specific weightings of parameters in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic profile (BMP), is a validated predictor of mortality. We hypothesised that IMRS calculated from prepandemic CBC and BMP predicts COVID-19 outcomes and that IMRS using laboratory results tested at COVID-19 diagnosis is also predictive. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary, secondary, urgent and emergent care, and drive-through testing locations across Utah and in sections of adjacent US states. Viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted from 3 March to 2 November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years were evaluated if they had CBC and BMP measured in 2019 and tested positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation or mortality, with secondary outcomes being hospitalisation and mortality separately. RESULTS: Among 3883 patients, 8.2% were hospitalised and 1.6% died. Subjects with low, mild, moderate and high-risk IMRS had the composite endpoint in 3.5% (52/1502), 8.6% (108/1256), 15.5% (152/979) and 28.1% (41/146) of patients, respectively. Compared with low-risk, subjects in mild-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups had HR=2.33 (95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), HR=4.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 5.50) and HR=8.34 (95% CI 5.54 to 12.57), respectively. Subjects aged <60 years had HR=3.06 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.65) and HR=7.38 (95% CI 3.14 to 17.34) for moderate and high risks versus low risk, respectively; those ≥60 years had HR=1.95 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.86) and HR=3.40 (95% CI 1.63 to 7.07). In multivariable analyses, IMRS was independently predictive and was shown to capture substantial risk variation of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS, a simple risk score using very basic laboratory results, predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. This included important abilities to identify risk in younger adults with few diagnosed comorbidities and to predict risk prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Emergency Department Discharge Among Patients With Sepsis.

Importance: Sepsis guidelines and research have focused on patients with sepsis who are admitted to the hospital, but the scope and implications of sepsis that is managed in an outpatient setting are largely unknown. Objective: To identify the prevalence, risk factors, practice variation, and outcomes for discharge to outpatient management of sepsis among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted at the EDs of 4 Utah hospitals, and data extraction and analysis were performed from 2017 to 2021. Participants were adult ED patients who presented to a participating ED from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, and met sepsis criteria before departing the ED alive and not receiving hospice care. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, health system parameters, and ED attending physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Information on ED disposition was obtained from electronic medical records, and 30-day mortality data were acquired from Utah state death records and the US Social Security Death Index. Factors associated with ED discharge rather than hospital admission were identified using penalized logistic regression. Variation in ED discharge rates between physicians was estimated after adjustment for potential confounders using generalized linear mixed models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used in the primary analysis to assess the noninferiority of outpatient management for 30-day mortality (noninferiority margin of 1.5%) while adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Results: Among 12 333 ED patients with sepsis (median [IQR] age, 62 [47-76] years; 7017 women [56.9%]) who were analyzed in the study, 1985 (16.1%) were discharged from the ED. After penalized regression, factors associated with ED discharge included age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90 per 10-y increase; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), arrival to ED by ambulance (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.71), organ failure severity (aOR, 0.58 per 1-point increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60), and urinary tract (aOR, 4.56 [95% CI, 3.91-5.31] vs pneumonia), intra-abdominal (aOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.39-0.65] vs pneumonia), skin (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.14-1.72] vs pneumonia) or other source of infection (aOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.40-1.97] vs pneumonia). Among 89 ED attending physicians, adjusted ED discharge probability varied significantly (likelihood ratio test, P < .001), ranging from 8% to 40% for an average patient. The unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in discharged patients than admitted patients (0.9% vs 8.3%; P < .001), and their adjusted 30-day mortality was noninferior (propensity-adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09-0.48]; adjusted risk difference, 5.8% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%]; P < .001). Alternative confounder adjustment strategies yielded odds ratios that ranged from 0.21 to 0.42. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, discharge to outpatient treatment of patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED was more common than previously recognized and varied substantially between ED physicians, but it was not associated with higher mortality compared with hospital admission. Systematic, evidence-based strategies to optimize the triage of ED patients with sepsis are needed.