Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30202487›Full record

Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2018

Sepsis Bundle Adherence Is Associated with Improved Survival in Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock.

Peter K Milano, Shoma A Desai, Erick A Eiting, Erik F Hofmann, Chun N Lam, Michael Menchine

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Peter K MilanoLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Shoma A DesaiLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Erick A EitingLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Erik F HofmannLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Chun N LamLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Michael MenchineLAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere have been conflicting data regarding the relationship between sepsis-bundle adherence and mortality. Moreover, little is known about how this relationship may be moderated by the anatomic source of infection or the location of sepsis declaration.

methodsThis was a multi-center, retrospective, observational study of adult patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. The study included patients who presented to one of three Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) full-service hospitals January 2012 to December 2014. The primary outcome of interest was the association between sepsis-bundle adherence and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included in-hospital mortality by source of infection, and the location of sepsis declaration.

resultsAmong the 4,582 patients identified with sepsis, overall mortality was lower among those who received bundle-adherent care compared to those who did not (17.9% vs. 20.4%; p=0.035). Seventy-five percent (n=3,459) of patients first met sepsis criteria in the ED, 9.6% (n=444) in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 14.8% (n=678) on the ward. Bundle adherence was associated with lower mortality for those declaring in the ICU (23.0% adherent [95% confidence interval{CI} {16.8-30.5}] vs. 31.4% non-adherent [95% CI {26.4-37.0}]; p=0.063), but not for those declaring in the ED (17.2% adherent [95% CI {15.8-18.7}] vs. 15.1% non-adherent [95% CI {13.0-17.5}]; p=0.133) or on the ward (24.8% adherent [95% CI {18.6-32.4}] vs. 24.4% non-adherent [95% CI {20.9-28.3}]; p=0.908). Pneumonia was the most common source of sepsis (32.6%), and patients with pneumonia had the highest mortality of all other subsets receiving bundle non-adherent care (28.9%; 95% CI [25.3-32.9]). Although overall mortality was lower among those who received bundle-adherent care compared to those who did not, when divided into subgroups by suspected source of infection, a statistically significant mortality benefit to bundle-adherent sepsis care was only seen in patients with pneumonia.

conclusionIn a large public healthcare system, adherence with severe sepsis/septic shock management bundles was found to be associated with improved survival. Bundle adherence seems to be most beneficial for patients with pneumonia. The overall improved survival in patients who received bundle-adherent care was driven by patients declaring in the ICU. Adherence was not associated with lower mortality in the large subset of patients who declared in the ED, nor in the smaller subset of patients who declared in the ward.

Indexed as

FemaleGuideline AdherenceHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care BundlesPatient DischargeRetrospective StudiesShock, Septic

Identifiers

PMID30202487
PMCPMC6123087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.