Association between variables measured in the ambulance and in-hospital mortality among adult patients with and without infection: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with infection to the ambulance are common, but risk factors for poor outcome are not known. The primary aim of the current study was to study the association between variables measured in the ambulance and mortality among adult patients with and without infection. The secondary aim was to study the association between these variables and mortality in a subgroup of patients who developed sepsis within 36 h. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 553 ambulance patients with, and 318 patients without infection, performed in Stockholm during 2017-2018. The association between 21 variables (8 keywords related to medical history, 6 vital signs, 4 blood tests, and age, gender, comorbidity) and in-hospital mortality was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among patients with infection, inability of the patient to answer questions relating to certain symptoms such as pain and gastrointestinal symptoms was significantly associated with mortality in univariable analysis, in addition to oxygen saturation < 94%, heart rate > 110 /min, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 15, soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) 4.0-7.9 ng/mL, suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL and a Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 5. suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL remained significant in multivariable analysis (OR 25.4; 95% CI, 3.2-199.8). Among patients without infection, suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL and a Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 5 were significantly associated with mortality in univariable analysis, while suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL remained significant in multivariable analysis (OR 56.1; 95% CI, 4.5-700.0). Among patients who developed sepsis, inability to answer questions relating to pain remained significant in multivariable analysis (OR 13.2; 95% CI, 2.2-78.9), in addition to suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL (OR 16.1; 95% CI, 2.0-128.6). CONCLUSIONS: suPAR ≥ 8.0 ng/mL was associated with mortality in patients presenting to the ambulance both with and without infection and in those who developed sepsis. Furthermore, the inability of the ambulance patient with an infection to answer questions relating to specific symptoms was associated with a surprisingly high mortality. These results suggest that suPAR and medical history are valuable tools with which to identify patients at risk of poor outcome in the ambulance and could potentially signal the need of enhanced attention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249597. Registered 15 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03249597 .

Keywords reflecting sepsis presentation based on mode of emergency department arrival: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Current sepsis screening tools are predominantly based on vital signs. However, patients with serious infections frequently present with normal vital signs and there has been an increased interest to include other variables such as symptoms in screening tools to detect sepsis. The majority of patients with sepsis arrive to the emergency department by emergency medical services. Our hypothesis was that the presentation of sepsis, including symptoms, may differ between patients arriving to the emergency department by emergency medical services and patients arriving by other means. This information is of interest to adapt future sepsis screening tools to the population in which they will be implemented. The aim of the current study was to compare the prevalence of keywords reflecting the clinical presentation of sepsis based on mode of arrival among septic patients presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of 479 adult septic patients. Keywords reflecting sepsis presentation upon emergency department arrival were quantified and analyzed based on mode of arrival, i.e., by emergency medical services or by other means. We adjusted for multiple comparisons by applying Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels for all comparisons. Adjustments for age, gender, and sepsis severity were performed by stratification. All patients were admitted to the emergency department of Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, and discharged with an ICD-10 code compatible with sepsis between January 1, and December 31, 2013. RESULTS: "Abnormal breathing" (51.8% vs 20.5%, p value < 0.001), "abnormal circulation" (38.4% vs 21.3%, p value < 0.001), "acute altered mental status" (31.1% vs 13.1%, p value < 0.001), and "decreased mobility" (26.1% vs 10.7%, p value < 0.001) were more common among patients arriving by emergency medical services, while "pain" (71.3% vs 40.1%, p value < 0.001) and "risk factors for sepsis" (50.8% vs 30.8%, p value < 0.001) were more common among patients arriving by other means. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of most keywords related to sepsis presentation was similar irrespective of mode of arrival; however, some differences were present. This information may be useful in clinical decision tools or sepsis screening tools.

The predictive value of variables measurable in the ambulance and the development of the Predict Sepsis screening tools: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite sepsis being a time critical condition with a high mortality, it is often not identified in a timely fashion. The aim of the current study was to create a screening tool based on bedside measurable variables predictive of sepsis among ambulance patients with infection according to clinical judgment by ambulance personnel. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 551 adult patients presenting with suspected infection, performed in the ambulance setting of Stockholm during 2017-2018. 18 variables were measured in the ambulance (8 keywords related to medical history, 6 vital signs, 4 point-of-care blood tests, in addition to age, gender, and comorbidity. Logistic regression, area under the curve (AUC) and classification trees were used to study the association with sepsis. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were used to evaluate the predictive ability of sepsis screening models. RESULTS: The six variables with the strongest association with sepsis were: systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg, temperature > 38.5 °C, GCS < 15, lactate > 4 mmol/L, gastrointestinal symptoms, and a history of acute altered mental status. These were combined into the Predict Sepsis screening tool 1, with a sensitivity of 0.90, specificity 0.41, AUC 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.81, PPV 0.52, and NPV 0.86. Combining a history of acute altered mental status with GCS < 15 and excluding lactate in the Predict Sepsis screening tool 2 did not noticeably affect the AUC. In addition, the AUCs of these models did not differ noticeably when compared to a model including vital signs alone, with novel calculated cut-offs; the Predict Sepsis screening tool 3. CONCLUSIONS: Systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg, temperature > 38.5 °C, GCS < 15, lactate > 4 mmol/L, gastrointestinal symptoms, and a history of acute altered mental status demonstrated the strongest association with sepsis. We present three screening tools to predict sepsis with similar sensitivity. The results indicated no noticeable increase of predictive ability by including symptom-variables and blood tests to a sepsis screening tool in the current study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03249597.

Presentations of adult septic patients in the prehospital setting as recorded by emergency medical services: a mixed methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current sepsis screening tools rely on vital parameters which are, however, normal in one third of patients with serious infections. Therefore, there is a need to include other variables than vital parameters to identify septic patients. Our primary aim was to identify and quantify keywords related to the septic patients' symptom presentation in the prehospital setting. The secondary aims were to compare keywords in relation to in-hospital mortality and the distribution of keywords in relation to age categories, survivors/ deceased and severe/ non-severe sepsis. METHODS: A mixed methods analysis using a sequential exploratory design was performed, starting with a content analysis of presentations of septic patients as documented in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) records (n = 80) from 2012, to identify keywords related to sepsis presentation. Thereafter, the identified keywords were quantified among 359 septic patients from 2013. All patients were adults, admitted to Södersjukhuset and discharged with an ICD-10-code (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) compatible with sepsis. RESULTS: The most common keywords related to septic patients' symptom presentation were: abnormal/ suspected abnormal temperature (64.1.%), pain (38.4%), acute altered mental status (38.2%), weakness of the legs (35.1%), breathing difficulties (30.4%), loss of energy (26.2%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (24.0%). There was an association between keywords and in-hospital mortality. Symptoms varied between age categories, survivors/ deceased and severe/ non-severe sepsis. DISCUSSION: This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study exploring the symptom presentation as documented by EMS, of septic patients in the prehospital setting. Keywords related to patients´ symptom presentation recurred in the EMS records of septic patients, so that a pattern was discernible. In addition, certain symptom presentations were associated with increased in-hospital mortality CONCLUSIONS: Information relating to symptom presentation is not included in current sepsis screening tools. We suggest that keywords related to patients´ symptom presentation could be integrated into screening tools and may thus increase the identification of sepsis, and potentially also identify high-risk patients. However, as a first step, the specificity of these keywords, with respect to sepsis, needs to be examined.

Longer time to antibiotics and higher mortality among septic patients with non-specific presentations--a cross sectional study of Emergency Department patients indicating that a screening tool may improve identification.

BACKGROUND: The presentation of sepsis is varied and our hypotheses were that septic patients with non-specific presentations such as decreased general condition (DGC) have a less favourable outcome, and that a screening tool could increase identification of these patients. We aimed to: 1) assess time to antibiotics and in-hospital mortality among septic patients with ED chief complaint DGC, as compared with septic patients with other ED chief complaints, and 2) determine whether a screening tool could improve identification of septic patients with non-specific presentations such as DGC. METHODS: Cross sectional study comparing time to antibiotics (Mann Whitney and Kaplan-Meier tests), and in-hospital mortality (logistic regression), between 61 septic patients with ED chief complaint DGC and 516 septic patients with other ED chief complaints. The sensitivity and specificity of the modified Robson screening tool was compared with that of ED doctor clinical judgment (McNemar's two related samples test) among 122 patients presenting to the ED with chief complaint DGC, of which 61 were discharged with ICD code sepsis. RESULTS: Septic patients presenting to the ED with the chief complaint DGC had a longer median time to antibiotics (05:26 h:minutes; IQR 4:00-10:40, vs. 03:56 h:minutes; IQR 2:21-7:32) and an increased in-hospital mortality (crude OR = 4.01; 95% CI, 2.19-7.32), compared to septic patients with other ED chief complaints. This association remained significant when adjusting for sex, age, priority, comorbidity and fulfilment of the Robson score (OR 4.31; 95% CI, 2.12-8.77). The modified Robson screening tool had a higher sensitivity (63.0 vs. 24.6%, p < 0.001), but a lower specificity (68.3 vs. 100.0%, p < 0.001), as compared to clinical judgment. DISCUSSION: This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study comparing outcome of septic patients according to ED chief complaint. Septic patients presenting with a non-specific ED presentation, here exemplified as the chief complaint DGC, have a less favourable outcome. Our results indicate that implementation of a screening tool may increase the identification of septic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that septic patients presenting with ED chief complaint DGC constitute a vulnerable patient group with delayed time to antibiotics and high in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, the results support that implementation of a screening tool may be beneficial to improve identification of these patients.