We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study).
Intensive Care Medicine 2015 September
INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence demonstrating the value of performance initiatives, marked differences remain between hospitals in the delivery of care for patients with sepsis. The aims of this study were to improve our understanding of how compliance with the 3-h and 6-h Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundles are used in different geographic areas, and how this relates to outcome.
METHODS: This was a global, prospective, observational, quality improvement study of compliance with the SSC bundles in patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock.
RESULTS: A total of 1794 patients from 62 countries were enrolled in the study with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Overall compliance with all the 3-h bundle metrics was 19%. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (20 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). Overall compliance with all the 6-h bundle metrics was 36%. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (22 vs. 32%, p < 0.001). After adjusting the crude mortality differences for ICU admission, sepsis status (severe sepsis or septic shock), location of diagnosis, APACHE II score and country, compliance remained independently associated with improvements in hospital mortality for both the 3-h bundle (OR = 0.64 (95% CI 0.47-0.87), p = 0.004)) and 6-h bundle (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.90), p = 0.005)).
DISCUSSION: Compliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics was not high. Patients whose care included compliance with all of these metrics had a 40% reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36% for the 6-h bundle.
METHODS: This was a global, prospective, observational, quality improvement study of compliance with the SSC bundles in patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock.
RESULTS: A total of 1794 patients from 62 countries were enrolled in the study with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Overall compliance with all the 3-h bundle metrics was 19%. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (20 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). Overall compliance with all the 6-h bundle metrics was 36%. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (22 vs. 32%, p < 0.001). After adjusting the crude mortality differences for ICU admission, sepsis status (severe sepsis or septic shock), location of diagnosis, APACHE II score and country, compliance remained independently associated with improvements in hospital mortality for both the 3-h bundle (OR = 0.64 (95% CI 0.47-0.87), p = 0.004)) and 6-h bundle (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.90), p = 0.005)).
DISCUSSION: Compliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics was not high. Patients whose care included compliance with all of these metrics had a 40% reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36% for the 6-h bundle.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Acute and non-acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (47/130).Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 2024 March 2
Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM).Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 March 6
Ten Influential Point-of-Care Ultrasound Papers: 2023 in Review.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 20
Administration of methylene blue in septic shock: pros and cons.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2024 Februrary 17
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app