急诊科败血症代码协议的有效性和安全性:实用临床试验

Ithan D Peltan, Joseph R Bledsoe, Jason R Jacobs, Danielle Groat, Carolyn Klippel, Michelle Adamson, Gabriel A Hooper, Nick J Tinker, Rachel A Foster, Edward A Stenehjem, Tamara D Moores Todd, Adam Balls, Jennifer Avery, Gary Brunson, Jon Jones, Jeremy Bair, Andrew Dorais, Matthew H Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown
{"title":"急诊科败血症代码协议的有效性和安全性:实用临床试验","authors":"Ithan D Peltan, Joseph R Bledsoe, Jason R Jacobs, Danielle Groat, Carolyn Klippel, Michelle Adamson, Gabriel A Hooper, Nick J Tinker, Rachel A Foster, Edward A Stenehjem, Tamara D Moores Todd, Adam Balls, Jennifer Avery, Gary Brunson, Jon Jones, Jeremy Bair, Andrew Dorais, Matthew H Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-286OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Sepsis care delivery-including the initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials-remains suboptimal. <b>Objectives:</b> This study was conducted to determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. <b>Methods:</b> This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients who presented from November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based \"Code Sepsis\" protocol. Patients who presented to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous control subjects. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses used difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. <b>Results:</b> Code Sepsis protocol activation (<i>N</i> = 307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients who met sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% confidence interval = 7-19) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnoses among patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. <b>Conclusions:</b> Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04148989).</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1560-1571"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568504/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ithan D Peltan, Joseph R Bledsoe, Jason R Jacobs, Danielle Groat, Carolyn Klippel, Michelle Adamson, Gabriel A Hooper, Nick J Tinker, Rachel A Foster, Edward A Stenehjem, Tamara D Moores Todd, Adam Balls, Jennifer Avery, Gary Brunson, Jon Jones, Jeremy Bair, Andrew Dorais, Matthew H Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-286OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Sepsis care delivery-including the initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials-remains suboptimal. <b>Objectives:</b> This study was conducted to determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. <b>Methods:</b> This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients who presented from November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based \\\"Code Sepsis\\\" protocol. Patients who presented to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous control subjects. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses used difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. <b>Results:</b> Code Sepsis protocol activation (<i>N</i> = 307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients who met sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% confidence interval = 7-19) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnoses among patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. <b>Conclusions:</b> Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04148989).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1560-1571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568504/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the American Thoracic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-286OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-286OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:脓毒症护理服务(包括启动及时、适当的抗菌药物)仍未达到最佳水平:确定急诊科(ED)脓毒症护理重组的直接和非目标效果:这项务实的试点试验招募了2019年11月至2021年2月在犹他州一家急诊科就诊的成人患者,这些患者在实施多模式、基于团队的 "脓毒症代码 "方案前后均有就诊。在另外两家急诊室接受常规治疗的患者作为同期对照。主要结果是在急诊室离开前符合败血症-3 标准的患者从门诊到使用抗菌药物的时间。次要和安全性结果包括全因 30 天死亡率、抗菌药物使用率和过度治疗以及抗菌药物相关不良事件。多变量回归分析采用了差异分析方法,以考虑与研究干预无关的结果趋势:脓毒症代码协议激活(N=307)对急诊室出发前符合脓毒症标准的患者具有 8.5% 的灵敏度和 66% 的阳性预测值。研究期间,在符合脓毒症标准的 10151 名患者中,调整后的差异分析表明,实施《败血症规范》后,从门诊到抗微生物治疗的时间缩短了 13 分钟(95% CI 7-19 分钟)(p结论:实施以团队为基础的快速败血症规范后,患者从门诊到抗微生物治疗的时间缩短了 13 分钟(95% CI 7-19 分钟):在 COVID-19 大流行的第一年,以团队为基础的脓毒症快速评估和治疗方案的实施缩短了急诊室的抗菌药物使用时间,但也增加了抗菌药物的使用。要全面评估脓毒症护理改进干预措施的价值,就必须衡量其以患者为中心的效果和非目标效果:临床试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148989)。本文根据知识共享署名非商业性无衍生许可 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 条款开放获取和发布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Sepsis care delivery-including the initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials-remains suboptimal. Objectives: This study was conducted to determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. Methods: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients who presented from November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients who presented to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous control subjects. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses used difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. Results: Code Sepsis protocol activation (N = 307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients who met sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% confidence interval = 7-19) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (P < 0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnoses among patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. Conclusions: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04148989).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信