Bumanglag Niña M, San Juan Mari Des J, Palo Jose Emmanuel M
Department of Medicine, The Medical City, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City, Philippines.
Acute and Critical Care Institute, The Medical City, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City, Philippines.
Crit Care Explor. 2019 Nov 14;1(11):e0056. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000056. eCollection 2019 Nov.
To compare the outcomes of sepsis management using protocol-based therapy versus non-protocolized care, assessed over 10 years.
Retrospective cohort study, analyzed longitudinally with risk-adjusted control charts, referenced against hospital- and unit-level programs or interventions.
Private, tertiary teaching hospital ICU in the Philippines.
Nine-hundred fifty adult patients (19 yr old or older) diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock, using 2001 consensus definitions, admitted to the ICU from September 2007 to August 2017.
Three iterations of a standard clinical pathway (including early antibiotics, prescribed fluid resuscitation, and hemodynamic management) versus concurrent non-protocolized care.
Seven-hundred sixty patients were in the protocol-based care group versus 190 in the non-protocolized care group. Protocol-based management was associated with lower hospital mortality (28.4% vs 44.7%; = 0.00) and ICU mortality (24.2% vs 31.6%; = 0.038). There were no differences in ICU or hospital length-of-stay, mechanical ventilator days, or vasoactive days. Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum and Risk-Adjusted Exponentially Weighted Moving Average control charts showed that a survival advantage was achieved after 1 year and was sustained over the duration of the study.
Protocol-based management was associated with sustained improvements in the survival of sepsis patients over 10 years in this hospital setting, after a run-in period of 1 year. Hospital- and unit-level interventions may have measurable impacts on the efficacy of sepsis clinical pathways.
