ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Sepsis Fast Track (SFT) programme initiated at a regional referral hospital in Thailand in January 2015. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis using the data of a prospective observational study (Ubon-sepsis) from March 2013 to January 2017. SETTING: General medical wards and medical intensive care units (ICUs) of a study hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with community-acquired sepsis observed under the Ubon-sepsis cohort. Sepsis was defined as modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score ≥2. MAIN EXPOSURE: The SFT programme was a protocol to identify and initiate sepsis care on hospital admission, implemented at the study hospital in 2015. Patients in the SFT programme were admitted directly to the ICUs when available. The non-exposed group comprised of patients who received standard of care. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were measured sepsis management interventions. RESULTS: Of 3806 sepsis patients, 903 (24%) were detected and enrolled in the SFT programme of the study hospital (SFT group) and 2903 received standard of care (non-exposed group). Patients in the SFT group had more organ dysfunction, were more likely to receive measured sepsis management and to be admitted directly to the ICU (19% vs 4%). Patients in the SFT group were more likely to survive (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88, p=0.001) adjusted for admission year, gender, age, comorbidities, modified SOFA Score and direct admission to the ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: The SFT programme is associated with improved sepsis care and lower risk of death in sepsis patients in rural Thailand, where some critical care resources are limited. The survival benefit is observed even when all patients enrolled in the programme could not be admitted directly into the ICUs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02217592.
Subject(s)
Organ Dysfunction Scores , Sepsis , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Sepsis/therapy , ThailandABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition in critically ill patients is linked with significant mortality and morbidity. However, it remains controversial whether nutrition therapy protocols are effective in improving clinical outcomes. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a surgical ICU nutrition protocol, and to compare the hospital mortality, hospital LOS, and ICU LOS of protocol and non-protocol groups. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Surgical ICU, Siriraj Hospital. The nutrition administration of the control group was at the discretion of the attending physicians, whereas that of the intervention group followed the "Siriraj Surgical ICU Nutrition Protocol". Details of the demographic data, nutritional data, and clinical outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In all, 170 patients underwent randomization, with 85 individuals each in the protocol and non-protocol groups. More than 90% of the patients in both groups were at risk of malnutrition, indicated by a score of ≥ 3 on the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool. The average daily calories of the 2 groups were very similar (protocol group, 775.4±342.2 kcal vs. control group, 773.0±391.9 kcal; p = 0.972). However, the median time to commence enteral nutrition was shorter for the protocol group (1.94 days) than the control group (2.25 days; p = 0.503). Enteral nutrition was provided within the first 48 hours to 53.7% of the protocol patients vs. 47.4% of the control patients (p = 0.589). In addition, a higher proportion of the protocol patients (36.5%) reached the 60% calorie-target on Day 4 after admission than that for the non-protocol group (25.9%; p = 0.136). All other clinical outcomes and nutrition-related complications were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the nutrition protocol did not improve the feeding effectiveness or clinical outcomes as compared to usual nutrition management practices of the Surgical ICU.
