METHODS: This was an observational study conducted among sepsis patients presented to ED of a tertiary university hospital from 18th January 2021 until 28th February 2021. ED overcrowding status was determined using the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Score (NEDOCS) scoring system. Sepsis patients were identified using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and their door-to-antibiotic time (DTA) were recorded. Patient outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26. P-value of less than 0.05 for a two-sided test was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Total of 170 patients were recruited. Among them, 33 patients presented with septic shock and only 15% (n = 5) received antibiotics within one hour. Of 137 sepsis patients without shock, 58.4% (n = 80) received antibiotics within three hours. We found no significant association between ED overcrowding with DTA time (p = 0.989) and LOS (p = 0.403). However, in-hospital mortality increased two times during overcrowded ED (95% CI 1-4; p = 0.041).
CONCLUSION: ED overcrowding has no significant impact on DTA and LOS which are crucial indicators of sepsis care quality but it increases overall mortality outcome. Further research is needed to explore other factors such as lack of resources, delay in initiating fluid resuscitation or vasopressor so as to improve sepsis patient care during ED overcrowding.
METHODS: Fifty-one adult patients with suspected bacterial sepsis on admission to the Emergency Department (ED) of a teaching hospital were included into the study. All relevant cultures and serology tests were performed. Serum levels for Group II Secretory Phospholipase A2 (sPLA2-IIA) and CD64 were subsequently analyzed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sepsis was confirmed in 42 patients from a total of 51 recruited subjects. Twenty-one patients had culture-confirmed bacterial infections. Both biomarkers were shown to be good in distinguishing sepsis from non-sepsis groups. CD64 and sPLA2-IIA also demonstrated a strong correlation with early sepsis diagnosis in adults. The area under the curve (AUC) of both Receiver Operating Characteristic curves showed that sPLA2-IIA was better than CD64 (AUC = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-0.97 and AUC = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.99, respectively). The optimum cutoff value was 2.13μg/l for sPLA2-IIA (sensitivity = 91%, specificity = 78%) and 45 antigen bound cell (abc) for CD64 (sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 89%). In diagnosing bacterial infections, sPLA2-IIA showed superiority over CD64 (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.85-0.96, and AUC = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93-1.00, respectively). The optimum cutoff value for bacterial infection was 5.63μg/l for sPLA2-IIA (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 94%) and 46abc for CD64 (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 83%).
CONCLUSIONS: sPLA2-IIA showed superior performance in sepsis and bacterial infection diagnosis compared to CD64. sPLA2-IIA appears to be an excellent biomarker for sepsis screening and for diagnosing bacterial infections, whereas CD64 could be used for screening bacterial infections. Both biomarkers either alone or in combination with other markers may assist in decision making for early antimicrobial administration. We recommend incorporating sPLA2-IIA and CD64 into the diagnostic algorithm of sepsis in ED.