Andrea N. Miltiades

Serum lactate is associated with mortality in severe sepsis independent of organ failure and shock

Principle:Serum lactate is a potentially useful biomarker to risk-stratify patients with severe sepsis; however, it is plausible that elevated serum lactate is simply a manifestation of clinically apparent organ dysfunction and/or shock (i.e., refractory hypotension). Objective:To test whether the association between initial serum lactate level and mortality in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with severe sepsis is independent of organ dysfunction and shock. Design:Single-center cohort study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality and the risk factor variable was initial venous lactate (mmol/L), categorized as low (<2), intermediate (2–3.9), or high (≥4). Potential covariates included age, sex, race, acute and chronic organ dysfunction, severity of illness, and initiation of early goal-directed therapy. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were stratified on the presence or absence of shock. Setting:The ED of an academic tertiary care center from 2005 to 2007. Patients:Eight hundred thirty adults admitted with severe sepsis in the ED. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Mortality at 28 days was 22.9% and median serum lactate was 2.9 mmol/L. Intermediate (odds ratio {lsqb;OR{rsqb; = 2.05, p = 0.024) and high serum lactate levels (OR = 4.87, p < 0.001) were associated with mortality in the nonshock subgroup. In the shock subgroup, intermediate (OR = 3.27, p = 0.022) and high serum lactate levels (OR = 4.87, p = 0.001) were also associated with mortality. After adjusting for potential confounders, intermediate and high serum lactate levels remained significantly associated with mortality within shock and nonshock strata. Conclusions:Initial serum lactate was associated with mortality independent of clinically apparent organ dysfunction and shock in patients admitted to the ED with severe sepsis. Both intermediate and high serum lactate levels were independently associated with mortality.

Factors Associated With Nonadherence to Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the ED

BACKGROUND Protocol-driven early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the ED. EGDT appears to be underused, even in centers with formalized protocols. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with not initiating EGDT in the ED. METHODS This was a cohort study of 340 EGDT-eligible patients presenting to a single center ED from 2005 to 2007. EGDT eligibility was defined as a serum lactate >or= 4 mmol/L or systolic BP< 90 mm Hg after volume resuscitation. EGDT initiation was defined as the measurement of central venous oxygen saturation via central venous catheter. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounding. RESULTS EGDT was not initiated in 142 eligible patients (42%). EGDT was not completed in 43% of patients in whom EGDT was initiated. Compliance with the protocol varied significantly at the physician level, ranging from 0% to 100%. Four risk factors were found to be associated independently with decreased odds of initiating EGDT: female sex of the patient (P = .001), female sex of the clinician (P = .041), serum lactate (rather than hemodynamic) criterion for EGDT (P = .018), and nonconsultation to the Severe Sepsis Service (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Despite a formalized protocol, we found that EGDT was underused. We identified potential barriers to the effective implementation of EGDT at the patient, clinician, and organizational level. The use of a consultation service to facilitate the implementation of EGDT may be an effective strategy to improve protocol adherence.

The Epidemiology of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Severe Sepsis.

ABSTRACT Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a serious complication of sepsis, and sepsis-associated ARDS is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. To date, no study has directly examined the epidemiology of ARDS in severe sepsis from the earliest presentation to the health care system, the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a single-center retrospective, observational cohort study of 778 adults with severe sepsis presenting to the ED. The primary outcome was the development of ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation during the first 5 hospital days. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was defined using the Berlin definition. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors associated independently with ARDS development. Results: The incidence of ARDS was 6.2% (48/778 patients) in the entire cohort. Acute respiratory distress syndrome development varied across the continuum of care: 0.9% of patients fulfilled criteria for ARDS in the ED, 1.4% admitted to the ward developed ARDS, and 8.9% admitted to the intensive care unit developed ARDS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed a median of 1 day after admission and was associated with a 4-fold higher risk of in-hospital mortality (14% vs. 60%, P < 0.001). Independent risk factors associated with increased risk of ARDS development included intermediate (2–3.9 mmol/L) (P = 0.04) and high (≥4) serum lactate levels (P = 0.008), Lung Injury Prediction score (P < 0.001), and microbiologically proven infection (P = 0.01). Conclusions: In patients presenting to the ED with severe sepsis, the rate of sepsis-associated ARDS development varied across the continuum of care. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed rapidly and was associated with significant mortality. Elevated serum lactate levels in the ED and a recently validated clinical prediction score were independently associated with the development of ARDS in severe sepsis.

Elevation in serum lactate at the time of Febrile Neutropenia (FN) in hemodynamically-stable patients with Hematologic Malignancies (HM) is associated with the development of septic shock within 48 hours

Background: Hospitalized patients who develop febrile neutropenia (FN) are treated empirically with antibiotics due to a high risk of developing septic shock. Currently, there is no method to predict which patients are at greatest risk. This study was designed to determine whether serum lactate, measured at the time of FN, is associated with the development of septic shock in hospitalized hematologic malignancy (HM) patients. Methods: Vital signs and lactate were measured during episodes of FN. The primary endpoint was the development of septic shock. Using a prospective, nested, case-control design, controls were matched on length of stay at the time of septic shock to achieve 80% power to detect an OR of ≥ 2.5. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association of vital signs and lactate with the subsequent development of septic shock. Results: Of the 547 patients enrolled, 46 (8.4%; 95% CI 6.2-10.9) developed septic shock. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. In univariate analysis, tachypnea (OR 5.9; 95% CI: 2.0-16.9, p =.001) and lactate (OR 18.4; 95% CI: 4.1-81.6, p

Utility of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria in predicting the onset of septic shock in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies.

Background: The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have not been validated in patients with hematologic malignancies (HM). Objective: To determine whether daily assessment of SIRS criteria allows early identification of HM patients who will develop septic shock (SS). Design: Observational, single-center, nested case-control study. Setting: Oncology unit of a tertiary care center. Patients: 547 consecutive, hospitalized, HM subject were enrolled. Using incidence-density sampling, 184 controls were matched to 46 SS cases. Measurements: The study exposure was the SIRS score. The study outcome was the development of SS during the hospitalization. Main Results: 8.4% of subjects developed SS. SIRS scores measured 24 hours prior to SS were significantly higher in cases than in controls (2.1 vs. 1.4, p