ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2022
Compliance with SEP-1 guidelines is associated with improved outcomes for septic shock but not for severe sepsis.
Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) Compliance and Implementation on Mortality Among Patients With Sepsis : A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Teaching to the Test: Threading the Needle on Sepsis Quality Metrics.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Mitigating Bias in Machine Learning Models with Ethics-Based Initiatives: The Case of Sepsis.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- Gut microbiota and sepsis: mechanisms, clinical correlations, and therapeutic prospects.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Association Between Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Sepsis Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Article
- Decision analysis model of rapid versus deferred antibiotic initiation in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Bundle compliance patterns in septic shock and their association with patient outcomes: an unsupervised cluster analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Sepsis Before and After Implementation of a Sepsis Care Improvement Initiative at a Community Hospital.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2024Article
- State of the art of sepsis care for the emergency medicine clinician.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Review
- Impact of time to treatment in first occurrence, non-severeAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Sepsis Prediction Model for Determining Sepsis vs SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Risk for primary cephalosporin resistance in Gram-negative bacteremia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital. Methods: Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes. Results: Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, Conclusion: This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.