Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30986182›Full record

ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2019

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

Daniel E Leisman, Catalina Angel, Sandra M Schneider, Jason A D'Amore, John K D'Angelo, Martin E Doerfler

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel E LeismanIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Catalina AngelIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Sandra M SchneiderDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York.
Jason A D'AmoreDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York.
John K D'AngeloDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York.
Martin E DoerflerDepartment of Medicine, Hofstra-Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York.
Hofstra University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferences between hospital-presenting sepsis (HPS) and emergency department-presenting sepsis (EDPS) are not well described.

objectivesWe aimed to (1) quantify the prevalence of HPS versus EDPS cases and outcomes; (2) compare HPS versus EDPS characteristics at presentation; (3) compare HPS versus EDPS in process and patient outcomes; and (4) estimate risk differences in patient outcomes attributable to initial resuscitation disparities.

designRetrospective consecutive-sample cohort.

settingNine hospitals from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016. PATIENTS: All hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock, as defined by simultaneous (1) infection, (2) ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and (3) ≥1 acute organ dysfunction criterion. EDPS met inclusion criteria while physically in the emergency department (ED). HPS met the criteria after leaving the ED. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed overall HPS versus EDPS contributions to case prevalence and outcomes, and then compared group differences. Process outcomes included 3-hour bundle compliance and discrete bundle elements (eg, time to antibiotics). The primary patient outcome was hospital mortality.

resultsOf 11,182 sepsis hospitalizations, 2,509 (22.4%) were hospital-presenting. HPS contributed 785 (35%) sepsis mortalities. HPS had more frequent heart failure (OR: 1.31, CI: 1.18-1.47), renal failure (OR: 1.62, CI: 1.38-1.91), gastrointestinal source of infection (OR: 1.84, CI: 1.48-2.29), euthermia (OR: 1.45, CI: 1.10-1.92), hypotension (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.65-2.08), or impaired gas exchange (OR: 2.46, CI: 1.43-4.24). HPS were admitted less often from skilled nursing facilities (OR: 0.44, CI: 0.32-0.60), had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 0.53, CI: 0.36-0.78), tachypnea (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.58-0.98), or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.68-0.97). In a propensity-matched cohort (n = 3,844), HPS patients had less than half the odds of 3-hour bundle compliant care (17.0% vs 30.3%, OR: 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.57) or antibiotics within three hours (66.2% vs 83.8%, OR: 0.38, CI: 0.32-0.44) vs EDPS. HPS was associated with higher mortality (31.2% vs 19.3%, OR: 1.90, CI: 1.64-2.20); 23.3% of this association was attributable to differences in initial resuscitation (resuscitation-adjusted OR: 1.69, CI: 1.43-2.00).

conclusionsHPS differed from EDPS by admission source, comorbidities, and clinical presentation. These patients received markedly less timely initial resuscitation; this disparity explained a moderate proportion of mortality differences.

Indexed as

ResuscitationSepsisAgedComorbidityEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansInpatientsMaleMultiple Organ FailurePrevalenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30986182
PMCPMC6625440
OpenAlexW2936317679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.