This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log in
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Feb 18;11(2):e041022.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041022.

Effectiveness of a sepsis programme in a resource-limited setting: a retrospective analysis of data of a prospective observational study (Ubon-sepsis)

Affiliations
Observational Study

Effectiveness of a sepsis programme in a resource-limited setting: a retrospective analysis of data of a prospective observational study (Ubon-sepsis)

Suchart Booraphun et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Sepsis Fast Track (SFT) programme initiated at a regional referral hospital in Thailand in January 2015.

Design: A retrospective analysis using the data of a prospective observational study (Ubon-sepsis) from March 2013 to January 2017.

Setting: General medical wards and medical intensive care units (ICUs) of a study hospital.

Participants: Patients with community-acquired sepsis observed under the Ubon-sepsis cohort. Sepsis was defined as modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score ≥2.

Main exposure: The SFT programme was a protocol to identify and initiate sepsis care on hospital admission, implemented at the study hospital in 2015. Patients in the SFT programme were admitted directly to the ICUs when available. The non-exposed group comprised of patients who received standard of care.

Main outcome: The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were measured sepsis management interventions.

Results: Of 3806 sepsis patients, 903 (24%) were detected and enrolled in the SFT programme of the study hospital (SFT group) and 2903 received standard of care (non-exposed group). Patients in the SFT group had more organ dysfunction, were more likely to receive measured sepsis management and to be admitted directly to the ICU (19% vs 4%). Patients in the SFT group were more likely to survive (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88, p=0.001) adjusted for admission year, gender, age, comorbidities, modified SOFA Score and direct admission to the ICUs.

Conclusions: The SFT programme is associated with improved sepsis care and lower risk of death in sepsis patients in rural Thailand, where some critical care resources are limited. The survival benefit is observed even when all patients enrolled in the programme could not be admitted directly into the ICUs.

Trial registration number: NCT02217592.

Keywords: epidemiology; infectious diseases; intensive & critical care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of participants through study. This study used the data of an observational study on sepsis patients (Ubon-sepsis) from March 2013 to January 2017 to evaluate the effectiveness of a Sepsis Fast Track (SFT) programme implemented at the study hospital in January 2015. SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Unadjusted probability of survival and (B) adjusted probability of survival based on the multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model.

References

    1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. . The third International consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016;315:801–10. 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. . Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med 2017;45:486–552. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255 - DOI - PubMed
    1. WHO WHO sepsis technical expert meeting - meeting report Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. Available: https://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/sepsis_meeting-report-20... [Accessed 25 Nov 2019].
    1. Vincent J-L The clinical challenge of sepsis identification and monitoring. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002022. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002022 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. The Lancet 2020;395:200–11. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Full text links
HighWire full text link HighWire Free PMC article
Cite

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /