ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the stratification of sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED) for ICU admission and mortality using the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores with clinical judgement assessed by the ED staff.Patients and methodsThis was a prospective observational study in the ED of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Adult nontrauma patients with suspected infection and at least two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria were included. The primary outcome was direct ED to ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital, 28-day and 6-month mortality, indirect ICU admission and length of stay. Clinical judgement was recorded using the Clinical Impression Scores (CIS), appraised by a nurse and the attending physician. The PIRO and qSOFA scores were calculated from medical records.ResultsWe included 193 patients: 103 presented with sepsis, 81 with severe sepsis and nine with septic shock. Fifteen patients required direct ICU admission. The CIS scores of nurse [area under the curve (AUC)=0.896] and the attending physician (AUC=0.861), in conjunction with PIRO (AUC=0.876) and qSOFA scores (AUC=0.849), predicted direct ICU admission. The CIS scores did not predict any of the mortality endpoints. The PIRO score predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.764), 28-day (AUC=0.784) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.695). The qSOFA score also predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.823), 28-day (AUC=0.848) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.620).ConclusionClinical judgement is a fast and reliable method to stratify between ICU and general ward admission in ED patients with sepsis. The PIRO and qSOFA scores do not add value to this stratification, but perform better on the prediction of mortality. In sepsis patients, therefore, the principle of ‘treat first what kills first’ can be supplemented with ‘judge first and calculate later’.

BackgroundMore than one in five patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with (suspected) infection or sepsis deteriorate within 72 h from admission. Surprisingly little is known about vital signs in relation to deterioration, especially in the ED. The aim of our study was to determine whether repeated vital sign measurements in the ED can differentiate between patients who will deteriorate within 72 h and patients who will not deteriorate.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational study in patients presenting with (suspected) infection or sepsis to the ED of our tertiary care teaching hospital. Vital signs (heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate and body temperature) were measured in 30-min intervals during the first 3 h in the ED. Primary outcome was patient deterioration within 72 h from admission, defined as the development of acute kidney injury, liver failure, respiratory failure, intensive care unit admission or in-hospital mortality. We performed a logistic regression analysis using a base model including age, gender and comorbidities. Thereafter, we performed separate logistic regression analyses for each vital sign using the value at admission, the change over time and its variability. For each analysis, the odds ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsIn total 106 (29.5%) of the 359 patients deteriorated within 72 h from admission. Within this timeframe, 18.3% of the patients with infection and 32.9% of the patients with sepsis at ED presentation deteriorated. Associated with deterioration were: age (OR: 1.02), history of diabetes (OR: 1.90), heart rate (OR: 1.01), MAP (OR: 0.96) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.05) at admission, changes over time of MAP (OR: 1.04) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.44) as well as the variability of the MAP (OR: 1.06). Repeated measurements of heart rate and body temperature were not associated with deterioration.ConclusionsRepeated vital sign measurements in the ED are better at identifying patients at risk for deterioration within 72 h from admission than single vital sign measurements at ED admission.

ObjectivesSepsis lacks a reliable and readily available measure of disease activity. Thereby, it remains unclear how to monitor response to treatment. Research on numerous (new) biomarkers associated with sepsis provided disappointing results and little is known about changes in vital signs during sepsis resuscitation. We hypothesised that trends in vital signs together with routine biomarker levels during resuscitation might provide information about the response to treatment at a very early stage of sepsis in the emergency department (ED). We therefore explore trends in vital signs and routine biomarker levels during sepsis resuscitation in the ED.DesignProspective observational pilot study.SettingED of a tertiary care teaching hospital.Participants99 Adult non-trauma patients with suspected infection and 2 or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria admitted to the ED.Primary and secondary outcome measuresVital signs and biomarker levels at admittance (T0) and after 3 h in the ED (T1).ResultsIn total, data of 99 patients were analysed. Of these patients, 63 presented with sepsis, 30 with severe sepsis and 6 with septic shock. All vital signs decreased, except for peripheral oxygen saturation which increased. Almost all routine biomarker levels decreased during resuscitation, except for C reactive protein, bands, potassium, troponin T and direct bilirubin which remained stable. Sodium, chloride and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide increased slightly.ConclusionsVital signs and biomarker levels showed descending trends during resuscitation, except for parameters directly affected by treatment modalities. Despite these trends, most patients improved clinically. Trends in vital signs and routine biomarkers might be helpful in predicting clinical course and response to treatment in patients with sepsis during early resuscitation.

IntroductionOne in five patients with sepsis deteriorates within 48 hours after hospital admission. Regrettably, a clear tool for the early detection of deterioration is still lacking. The SepsiVit study aims to determine whether continuous heart rate variability (HRV) measurement can provide an early warning for deterioration in patients presenting with suspected infection or sepsis to the emergency department (ED).Methods and analysisThe protocol of a prospective observational study in the ED. We will include 171 adult medical patients presenting with suspected infection or sepsis and at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Patients with known pregnancy, cardiac transplantation or not admitted to our hospital are excluded.High sample frequency ECG signals (500 Hz), respiratory rate, blood pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation will be recorded continuously during the first 48 hours of hospitalisation using a bedside patient monitor (Philips IntelliVue MP70). Primary endpoint is patient deterioration, defined as the development of organ dysfunction, unplanned intensive care unit admission or in-hospital mortality. The ECG data will be used for offline HRV analysis. We will compare the HRV between two groups (deterioration/no deterioration) and analyse whether HRV provides an early warning for deterioration. Furthermore, we will create a multivariate predictive model for deterioration based on heart rate, respiratory rate and HRV. As planned secondary analyses, we (1) perform a subgroup analysis for patients with pneumosepsis and urosepsis and (2) determine whether HRV using lower sample frequencies (1 Hz or less) suffices to predict deterioration.Ethics and disseminationThe Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen granted a waiver for the study (METc 2015/164). Results will be disseminated through international peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. A lay summary of the results will be provided to the study participants.Trial registration number NTR6168; Pre-results.