Adverse effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment and surgical source control in adults with sepsis: results of a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Timely antimicrobial treatment and source control are strongly recommended by sepsis guidelines, however, their impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial conducted from July 2011 to May 2015 including forty German hospitals. All adult patients with sepsis treated in the participating ICUs were included. Primary exposures were timing of antimicrobial therapy and delay of surgical source control during the first 48 h after sepsis onset. Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Mixed models were used to investigate the effects of timing while adjusting for confounders. The linearity of the effect was investigated by fractional polynomials and by categorizing of timing. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 4792 patients receiving antimicrobial treatment and 1595 patients undergoing surgical source control. Fractional polynomial analysis identified a linear effect of timing of antimicrobials on 28-day mortality, which increased by 0.42% per hour delay (OR with 95% CI 1.019 [1.01, 1.028], p ≤ 0.001). This effect was significant in patients with and without shock (OR = 1.018 [1.008, 1.029] and 1.026 [1.01, 1.043], respectively). Using a categorized timing variable, there were no significant differences comparing treatment within 1 h versus 1–3 h, or 1 h versus 3–6 h. Delays of more than 6 h significantly increased mortality (OR = 1.41 [1.17, 1.69]). Delay in antimicrobials also increased risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock (OR per hour: 1.051 [1.022, 1.081], p ≤ 0.001). Time to surgical source control was significantly associated with decreased odds of successful source control (OR = 0.982 [0.971, 0.994], p = 0.003) and increased odds of death (OR = 1.011 [1.001, 1.021]; p = 0.03) in unadjusted analysis, but not when adjusted for confounders (OR = 0.991 [0.978, 1.005] and OR = 1.008 [0.997, 1.02], respectively). Only, among patients with septic shock delay of source control was significantly related to risk-of death (adjusted OR = 1.013 [1.001, 1.026], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that management of sepsis is time critical both for antimicrobial therapy and source control. Also patients, who are not yet in septic shock, profit from early anti-infective treatment since it can prevent further deterioration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134). Registered 23 August 2010, NCT01187134 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03901-9

A multifaceted educational intervention improved anti-infectious measures but had no effect on mortality in patients with severe sepsis

Sepsis is a major reason for preventable hospital deaths. A cluster-randomized controlled trial on an educational intervention did not show improvements of sepsis management or outcome. We now aimed to test an improved implementation strategy in a second intervention phase in which new intervention hospitals (former controls) received a multifaceted educational intervention, while controls (former intervention hospitals) only received feedback of quality indicators. Changes in outcomes from the first to the second intervention phase were compared between groups using hierarchical generalized linear models controlling for possible confounders. During the two phases, 19 control hospitals included 4050 patients with sepsis and 21 intervention hospitals included 2526 patients. 28-day mortality did not show significant changes between study phases in both groups. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within one hour increased in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals. Taking at least two sets of blood cultures increased significantly in both groups. During phase 2, intervention hospitals showed higher proportion of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy and de-escalation within 5 days. A survey among involved clinicians indicated lacking resources for quality improvement. Therefore, quality improvement programs should include all elements of sepsis guidelines and provide hospitals with sufficient resources for quality improvement. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered 23 August 2010, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01187134

Fever and hypothermia represent two populations of sepsis patients and are associated with outside temperature

Abstract Background Fever and hypothermia have been observed in septic patients. Their influence on prognosis is subject to ongoing debates. Methods We did a secondary analysis of a large clinical dataset from a quality improvement trial. A binary logistic regression model was calculated to assess the association of the thermal response with outcome and a multinomial regression model to assess factors associated with fever or hypothermia. Results With 6542 analyzable cases we observed a bimodal temperature response characterized by fever or hypothermia, normothermia was rare. Hypothermia and high fever were both associated with higher lactate values. Hypothermia was associated with higher mortality, but this association was reduced after adjustment for other risk factors. Age, community-acquired sepsis, lower BMI and lower outside temperatures were associated with hypothermia while bacteremia and higher procalcitonin values were associated with high fever. Conclusions Septic patients show either a hypothermic or a fever response. Whether hypothermia is a maladaptive response, as indicated by the higher mortality in hypothermic patients, or an adaptive response in patients with limited metabolic reserves under colder environmental conditions, remains an open question. Trial registration The original trial whose dataset was analyzed was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134) on August 23, 2010, the first patient was included on July 1, 2011

Perceptions of Quality of Interprofessional Collaboration, Staff Well-Being and Nonbeneficial Treatment: A Comparison between Nurses and Physicians in Intensive and Palliative Care

This study assessed differences in interprofessional collaboration, perception of nonbeneficial care, and staff well-being between critical care and palliative care teams. In six German hospitals, a staff survey was conducted between December 2013 and March 2015 among nurses and physicians in intensive and palliative care units. To allow comparability between unit types, a matching was performed for demographic characteristics of staff. N = 313 critical care and 79 palliative care staff participated, of which 72 each were successfully matched. Critical care nurses perceived the poorest overall quality of collaboration compared with critical care physicians and palliative care physicians and nurses. They also reported less inclusive leadership from attendings and head nurses, and the least collaboration on care decisions with physicians. They were most likely to perceive nonbeneficial care, and they reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and the highest intention to leave the job. In partial correlations, aspects of high-quality collaboration were associated with less perceived nonbeneficial care and higher staff well-being for both critical care and palliative care staff. Our findings indicate that critical care teams could improve collaboration and enhance well-being, particularly among nurses, by adopting principles of collaborative work culture as established in palliative care

A risk-model for hospital mortality among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock based on German national administrative claims data

<div><p>Background</p><p>Sepsis is a major cause of preventable deaths in hospitals. Feasible and valid methods for comparing quality of sepsis care between hospitals are needed. The aim of this study was to develop a risk-adjustment model suitable for comparing sepsis-related mortality between German hospitals.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We developed a risk-model using national German claims data. Since these data are available with a time-lag of 1.5 years only, the stability of the model across time was investigated. The model was derived from inpatient cases with severe sepsis or septic shock treated in 2013 using logistic regression with backward selection and generalized estimating equations to correct for clustering. It was validated among cases treated in 2015. Finally, the model development was repeated in 2015. To investigate secular changes, the risk-adjusted trajectory of mortality across the years 2010–2015 was analyzed.</p><p>Results</p><p>The 2013 deviation sample consisted of 113,750 cases; the 2015 validation sample consisted of 134,851 cases. The model developed in 2013 showed good validity regarding discrimination (<i>AUC</i> = 0.74), calibration (observed mortality in 1^st and 10^th risk-decile: 11%-78%), and fit (<i>R</i>^<i>2</i> = 0.16). Validity remained stable when the model was applied to 2015 (AUC = 0.74, 1^st and 10^th risk-decile: 10%-77%, <i>R</i>^<i>2</i> = 0.17). There was no indication of overfitting of the model. The final model developed in year 2015 contained 40 risk-factors. Between 2010 and 2015 hospital mortality in sepsis decreased from 48% to 42%. Adjusted for risk-factors the trajectory of decrease was still significant.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The risk-model shows good predictive validity and stability across time. The model is suitable to be used as an external algorithm for comparing risk-adjusted sepsis mortality among German hospitals or regions based on administrative claims data, but secular changes need to be taken into account when interpreting risk-adjusted mortality.</p></div

Calibration of the model derived in 2013 for predicting hospital mortality in cases with severe sepsis or septic shock treated in 2015.

<p>The gap between predicted and observed mortality (M±SD = 2.7%±0.7%) results from a secular trend with decreasing mortality (compare <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0194371#pone.0194371.g002" target="_blank">Fig 2</a>).</p

The German Quality Network Sepsis: study protocol for the evaluation of a quality collaborative on decreasing sepsis-related mortality in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design

Abstract Background While sepsis-related mortality decreased substantially in other developed countries, mortality of severe sepsis remained as high as 44% in Germany. A recent German cluster randomized trial was not able to improve guideline adherence and decrease sepsis-related mortality within the participating hospitals, partly based on lacking support by hospital management and lacking resources for documentation of prospective data. Thus, more pragmatic approaches are needed to improve quality of sepsis care in Germany. The primary objective of the study is to decrease sepsis-related hospital mortality within a quality collaborative relying on claims data. Method The German Quality Network Sepsis (GQNS) is a quality collaborative involving 75 hospitals. This study protocol describes the conduction and evaluation of the start-up period of the GQNS running from March 2016 to August 2018. Democratic structures assure participatory action, a study coordination bureau provides central support and resources, and local interdisciplinary quality improvement teams implement changes within the participating hospitals. Quarterly quality reports focusing on risk-adjusted hospital mortality in cases with sepsis based on claims data are provided. Hospitals committed to publish their individual risk-adjusted mortality compared to the German average. A complex risk-model is used to control for differences in patient-related risk factors. Hospitals are encouraged to implement a bundle of interventions, e.g., interdisciplinary case analyses, external peer-reviews, hospital-wide staff education, and implementation of rapid response teams. The effectiveness of the GQNS is evaluated in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design by comparing the change of hospital mortality of cases with sepsis with organ dysfunction from a retrospective baseline period (January 2014 to December 2015) and the intervention period (April 2016 to March 2018) between the participating hospitals and all other German hospitals. Structural and process quality indicators of sepsis care as well as efforts for quality improvement are monitored regularly. Discussion The GQNS is a large-scale quality collaborative using a pragmatic approach based on claims data. A complex risk-adjustment model allows valid quality comparisons between hospitals and with the German average. If this study finds the approach to be useful for improving quality of sepsis care, it may also be applied to other diseases. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02820675

Sample of cases with severe sepsis or septic shock in German national diagnostic related groups data.

<p>Sample of cases with severe sepsis or septic shock in German national diagnostic related groups data.</p