Cargando…

The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration

BACKGROUND: Administration of antibiotics to septic patients within 1 h was recommended in 2018 by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) as a strategy to improve survival outcomes. The use of sepsis screening tools in emergency departments (EDs) is important for early diagnosis and initiation of sepsi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suttapanit, Karn, Dangprasert, Kamonwan, Sanguanwit, Pitsucha, Supatanakij, Praphaphorn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9087922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35538415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-022-00420-w
_version_ 1784704260155375616
author Suttapanit, Karn
Dangprasert, Kamonwan
Sanguanwit, Pitsucha
Supatanakij, Praphaphorn
author_facet Suttapanit, Karn
Dangprasert, Kamonwan
Sanguanwit, Pitsucha
Supatanakij, Praphaphorn
author_sort Suttapanit, Karn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Administration of antibiotics to septic patients within 1 h was recommended in 2018 by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) as a strategy to improve survival outcomes. The use of sepsis screening tools in emergency departments (EDs) is important for early diagnosis and initiation of sepsis care. This study aimed to assess the impact of the Ramathibodi early warning score (REWs) on the administration of antibiotics within 1 h of presentation. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching between the sepsis-3 criteria (pre-period) and the REWs (post-period) as screening tools in adult patients with sepsis in EDs. The primary outcome was the proportion of receiving antibiotics within 1 h of presentation in the pre- and post-periods. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were analyzed without propensity matching. The proportion of antibiotic administration within 1 h was higher in patients screened using the REWs compared with standard of care in the total study population (79.5% vs. 61.4%, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, 153 patients were included in both groups. The proportion of antibiotic administration within 1 h was similar in patients screened using the REWs and those receiving standard of care (79.7% vs. 80.4%, p = 0.886). However, time to intensive care unit (ICU) admission was faster in patients screened using the REWs. Delays in receiving antibiotics of longer than 3 h were associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 7.04, 95% confidence interval 1.45 to 34.11, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the REWs as a tool in sepsis screening protocols in EDs did not improve rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h as recommended by the SSC. However, time to ICU admission was improved after implementation of the REWs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12245-022-00420-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9087922
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90879222022-05-11 The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration Suttapanit, Karn Dangprasert, Kamonwan Sanguanwit, Pitsucha Supatanakij, Praphaphorn Int J Emerg Med Research BACKGROUND: Administration of antibiotics to septic patients within 1 h was recommended in 2018 by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) as a strategy to improve survival outcomes. The use of sepsis screening tools in emergency departments (EDs) is important for early diagnosis and initiation of sepsis care. This study aimed to assess the impact of the Ramathibodi early warning score (REWs) on the administration of antibiotics within 1 h of presentation. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching between the sepsis-3 criteria (pre-period) and the REWs (post-period) as screening tools in adult patients with sepsis in EDs. The primary outcome was the proportion of receiving antibiotics within 1 h of presentation in the pre- and post-periods. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were analyzed without propensity matching. The proportion of antibiotic administration within 1 h was higher in patients screened using the REWs compared with standard of care in the total study population (79.5% vs. 61.4%, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, 153 patients were included in both groups. The proportion of antibiotic administration within 1 h was similar in patients screened using the REWs and those receiving standard of care (79.7% vs. 80.4%, p = 0.886). However, time to intensive care unit (ICU) admission was faster in patients screened using the REWs. Delays in receiving antibiotics of longer than 3 h were associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 7.04, 95% confidence interval 1.45 to 34.11, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the REWs as a tool in sepsis screening protocols in EDs did not improve rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h as recommended by the SSC. However, time to ICU admission was improved after implementation of the REWs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12245-022-00420-w. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9087922/ /pubmed/35538415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-022-00420-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Suttapanit, Karn
Dangprasert, Kamonwan
Sanguanwit, Pitsucha
Supatanakij, Praphaphorn
The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title_full The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title_fullStr The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title_full_unstemmed The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title_short The Ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
title_sort ramathibodi early warning score as a sepsis screening tool does not reduce the timing of antibiotic administration
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9087922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35538415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-022-00420-w
work_keys_str_mv AT suttapanitkarn theramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT dangprasertkamonwan theramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT sanguanwitpitsucha theramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT supatanakijpraphaphorn theramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT suttapanitkarn ramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT dangprasertkamonwan ramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT sanguanwitpitsucha ramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration
AT supatanakijpraphaphorn ramathibodiearlywarningscoreasasepsisscreeningtooldoesnotreducethetimingofantibioticadministration