Prehospital point-of-care lactate (pLA) measurement may be a useful tool to assist paramedics with diagnosing a range of conditions, but only if it can be shown to be a reliable surrogate for serum lactate (sLA) measurement. The aim of this study was to determine whether pLA is a reliable predictor of sLA.

This was a retrospective study of adult patients over a 12-month period who had pLA measured by paramedics in an urban Australian setting and were transported by ambulance to a tertiary hospital where sLA was measured. Patients were excluded if they suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest at any time, had missing data, or if sLA was not measured within 24 hours of arrival. Levels of agreement were determined using methods proposed by Bland and Altman.

A total of 290 patients were transported with a pLA recorded. After exclusions, there were 155 patients (55.0% male; age 71 [SD=18] years) remaining who had sLA recorded within 24 hours. Elevated pLA (>2.0mMol/L) was associated with sLA measurement (76.1% vs 23.9%; OR 3.18; 95% CI, 1.88-5.37; P<.0001). Median time between measurements was 89 minutes (IQR=75). Overall, median pLA was higher than sLA (3.0 [IQR=2.0] mMol/L vs 1.7 [IQR=1.3]; P<.001). Bland-Altman analysis on all participants showed a mean difference of 1.48 mMol/L (95% CI, -3.34 to 6.31). Normal pLA was found to be a true negative in 82.9% of cases, and elevated pLA was a true positive in 48.3% of cases. When the time between measurements was less than 60 minutes (n=25), normal pLA predicted normal sLA with 100% accuracy, with a false-positive rate of 18.2%. As time between measurements increased, accuracy diminished and the false-positive rate increased.

Overall, the level of agreement between pLA and sLA was poor. Accuracy of pLA diminished markedly as the time between the two measurements increased. It may be possible to use pLA as a screening tool; when considered this way, pLA performed much better, though larger prospective trials would be needed to confirm this.

SwanKL, KeeneT, AvardBJ. A 12-Month Clinical Audit Comparing Point-of-Care Lactate Measurements Tested by Paramedics with In-Hospital Serum Lactate Measurements. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):36–42.

In 2008–2009, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported over 30,000 cases of sepsis hospitalizations in Canada, an increase of almost 4,000 from 2005. Mortality rates from severe sepsis and septic shock continue to remain greater than 30% in Canada and are significantly higher than other critical conditions treated in the emergency department (ED). Our group formed a multidisciplinary sepsis committee, conducted an ED process of care analysis, and developed a quality improvement protocol. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of this sepsis management bundle on patient mortality.

This before and after study was conducted in two large Canadian tertiary care EDs and included adult patients with suspected severe infection that met at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. We studied the implementation of a sepsis bundle including triage flagging, RN medical directive, education campaign, and a modified sepsis protocol. The primary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality and sepsis protocol use.

We included a total of 167 and 185 patients in the pre- and post-intervention analysis, respectively. Compared to the pre-intervention group, mortality was significantly lower in the post-intervention group (30.7% versus 17.3%; absolute difference, 13.4%; 95% CI 9.8–17.0; p=0.006). There was also a higher rate of sepsis protocol use in the post-intervention group (20.3% versus 80.5%, absolute difference 60.2%; 95% CI 55.1–65.3; p<0.001). Additionally, we found shorter time-intervals from triage to MD assessment, fluid resuscitation, and antibiotic administration as well as lower rates of vasopressor requirements and ICU admission.

The implementation of our multidisciplinary ED sepsis bundle, including improved early identification and protocolized medical care, was associated with improved time to achieve key therapeutic interventions and a reduction in 30-day mortality. Similar low-cost initiatives could be implemented in other EDs to potentially improve outcomes for this high-risk group of patients.

We sought to determine whether the implementation of a sepsis protocol in a Canadian emergency department (ED) improves care for the subset of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

After implementing a sepsis protocol in our ED we used an ICU database and chart review to compare various time-dependent end points and outcomes between a historical control year and the first year after implementation. We reviewed the charts of all patients admitted to the ICU within 24 hours of ED admission with a primary or other diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, who met criteria for early goal-directed therapy within the first 6 hours of their ED stay.

We compared 29 patients from the control year with 30 patients from the year after implementation of our sepsis protocol. We found that patients treated during the postintervention year had improvements in time to antibiotics (4.2 v. 1.0 h, difference = –3.2 h, 95% CI –4.8 to –2.0), time to central line placement (above the diaphragm) (11.6 v. 3.2 h, difference = –8.4 h, 95% CI –12.1 to –4.7), time to arterial line placement (7.5 v. 2.3 h, difference = –5.2 h, 95% CI –7.4 to –3.0), and achievement of central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation goals (11.1 v. 5.1 h, difference = –6.0 h, 95% CI –11.03 to –1.71, and 13.1 v. 5.5 h, difference = –7.6 h, 95% CI –11.97 to –3.16, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay or mortality (31.0% v. 20.0%, difference = –11.0%, 95% CI –33.1% to 11.1%).

Implementation of an ED sepsis protocol improves care for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

We sought to evaluate the time to antibiotics for emergency department (ED) patients meeting criteria for severe sepsis before and after the implementation of an ED sepsis protocol. Compliance with published guidelines for time to antibiotics and initial empiric therapy in sepsis was also assessed.

A retrospective chart review was conducted. Emergency department patient encounters with International Classification of Diseases codes related to severe infections were screened during a 3-month period before and after the implementation of a sepsis protocol. Encounters meeting criteria for severe sepsis were further assessed. The time to initiation of antibiotics was determined as well as the initial choice of antimicrobial therapy based on the presumed source of infection.

We reviewed 213 unique ED patient encounters meeting criteria for severe sepsis. Analysis of the period before implementation showed a median time from the time criteria for severe sepsis were met to delivery of antibiotics of 163 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 124 to 210 min). Analysis of the period after implementation of the protocol revealed a median time of 79 minutes (95% CI 64 to 94 min), representing an overall reduction of 84 minutes (95% CI 42 to 126 min). Before the implementation of the protocol, 47% of patients received correct antibiotic coverage for the presumed source of infection in compliance with locally published guidelines. After the initiation of the protocol, 73% received appropriate initial antibiotics, for an overall improvement of 26%.

A guideline-based ED sepsis protocol for the evaluation and treatment of the septic patient appears to improve the time to administration of antibiotics as well as the appropriateness of initial antibiotic therapy in patients with severe sepsis.

Optimal management of severe sepsis in the ED has evolved rapidly. The purpose of these guidelines is to review key management principles for Canadian emergency physicians, utilizing an evidence-based grading system.

Key areas in the management of septic patents were determined by members of the CAEP Critical Care Interest Group (C4). Members of C4 were assigned a question to be answered after literature review, based on the Oxford grading system. After completion, each section underwent a secondary review by another member of C4. A tertiary review was conducted by additional external experts, and modifications were determined by consensus. Grading was based on peer-reviewed publications only, and where evidence was insufficient to address an important topic, a “practice point” was provided based on group opinion.

The project was initiated in 2005 and completed in December 2007. Key areas which were reviewed include the definition of sepsis, the use of invasive procedures, fluid resuscitation, vasopressor/inotrope use, the importance of culture acquisition in the ED, antimicrobial therapy and source control. Other areas reviewed included the use of corticosteroids, activated protein C, transfusions and mechanical ventilation.

Early sepsis management in the ED is paramount for optimal patient outcomes. The CAEP Critical Care Interest Group Sepsis Position Statement provides a framework to improve the ED care of this patient population.