AEM Early Access 51: Most emergency department patients meeting sepsis criteria are not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge

Welcome to the fifty-first episode of AEM Early Access, a FOAMed podcast collaboration between the Academic Emergency Medicine Journal and Brown Emergency Medicine. Each month, we'll give you digital open access to a recent AEM Article or Article in Press, with an author interview podcast.

Find this podcast series on iTunes here.

DISCUSSING (OPEN ACCESS THROUGH august 31, 2021; CLICK ON TITLE TO ACCESS)

Most emergency department patients meeting sepsis criteria are not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge. John M. Litell DO, Faheem Guirgis MD, Brian Driver MD, Alan E. Jones MD, Michael A. Puskarich MD

LISTEN NOW: INTERVIEW with author

John M. Litell, DO, FACEP

Emergency Physician

Hennepin Healthcare

Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine

University of Minnesota Medical School

Abstract

Objectives

Effective sepsis resuscitation depends on useful criteria for prompt identification of eligible patients. These criteria should reliably predict a discharge diagnosis of sepsis, ensuring that interventions are triggered for those who need it while avoiding potentially harmful interventions in those who do not. We sought to determine the proportion of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the emergency department (ED) that was ultimately diagnosed with sepsis and to quantify the subset of nonseptic patients with risk factors for harm from fluid resuscitation.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study of adult ED patients at a tertiary academic medical center included vital signs and laboratory results from the first 6 hours, plus administration of intravenous antibiotics, to determine if patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 consensus criteria. If these patients also had hypotension and lactic acidosis, we categorized them as Sepsis-3 plus shock. We used discharge ICD-9 codes to determine if patients were ultimately diagnosed with sepsis.

Results

Over 8 years, 3,121 ED patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 criteria in the first 6 hours. Of these, only 25% and 48% met explicit and implicit criteria for a discharge diagnosis of sepsis. Of 1,032 patients with Sepsis-3 plus shock, 48% and 62% met explicit and implicit criteria. Overall, 60% to 75% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria with or without shock did not receive a sepsis discharge diagnosis. At least one plausible risk factor for harm from large-volume fluid resuscitation was identified among 19% to 36% of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED but not ultimately diagnosed with sepsis at discharge.

Conclusions

Most patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED were not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge. Urgent treatment bundles triggered by consensus criteria in the early phase of ED care may be administered to several patients without sepsis, potentially exposing some to interventions of uncertain benefit and possible harm.