Perioperative medicine training resources: U5M11: Effective protocols for management of cardiac arrest and sepsis

This booklet is about guidelines for Patient and Family-Led Activation of Deterioration Teams

Abstract
Purpose: Perioperative cardiac arrests (CAs) are a rare but catastrophic perioperative complication. Much about incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of such events are still unknown. This study investigated anesthesia-related CAs at a tertiary teaching hospital.

Methods: CA incidence within 24 hours of anesthesia administration was prospectively identified from May 1, 2016 to April 31, 2019. Each CA was matched by four other cases without CA receiving anesthesia on the same date and under similar operating conditions. The CA cases were reviewed and assigned to one of three groups: anesthesia-related, anesthesia-contributing, and anesthesia not related.

Results: A total of 58,303 patients underwent 73,557 procedures under anesthesia during the study period. In sum, 27 CAs were reported for incidence of 3.7 per 10,000 anesthesia administrations (95% CI 2.3-5.1). Eleven CA were anesthesia-related for incidence of 1.5 per 10,000 anesthesia administrations. Four CA cases were anesthesia-contributing for incidence of 0.5 per 10,000 anesthesia administrations, while 53% of the anesthesia-related and -contributing CAs were due to respiratory problems. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score, cardiovascular surgery, emergency surgery, and increased duration of surgery were significantly correlated with CA incidents when compared to the control group. ASA physical status score is an independent risk factor of the occurrence of perioperative CA (OR 7.6, 95% CI 2.6-22.4; P<0.001).

Conclusion: Identifying factors associated with increased risk for anesthesia-related CA is of great importance in risk stratification for surgical patients. ASA physical status score was found to be a major factor in predicting perioperative CA, since patients with higher ASA scores had a statistically significant increased risk of CA. Therefore, extra precautions must be taken when dealing with unprepared patients who have uncontrolled medical illnesses, especially those who will be undergoing emergency surgery.

Excerpt
Background: In 2009 the UK National Patient Safety Agency relaunched its Being Open framework to facilitate the open disclosure of adverse events to patients in the NHS. The implementation of the framework has been, and remains, challenging in practice.

Aim: The aim of this work was to both critically evaluate and extend the current evidence base relating to open disclosure, with a view to supporting the implementation of a policy of open disclosure of adverse events in the NHS.

Methods: This work was conducted in three phases. The first phase comprised two focused systematic literature reviews, one summarising empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions to enhance open disclosure, and a second, broader scoping review, looking at reports of current opinion and practice and wider knowledge. The second phase involved primary qualitative research with the objective of generating new knowledge about UK-based stakeholders’ views on their role in and experiences of open disclosure. Stakeholder interviews were analysed using the framework approach. The third phase synthesised the findings from the first two phases to inform and develop a set of short pragmatic suggestions for NHS trust management, to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of open disclosure.

Results: A total of 610 papers met the inclusion criteria for the broad review. A large body of literature discussed open disclosure from a number of related, but sometimes conflicted, perspectives. Evidential gaps persist and current practice is based largely on expert consensus rather than evidence. There appears to be a tension between the existing pragmatic guidance and the more in-depth critiques of what being consistent and transparent in health care really means. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria for the more focused review. There was little evidence for the effectiveness of disclosure alone on organisational or individual outcomes or of interventions to promote and support open disclosure. Interviews with stakeholders identified strong support for the basic principle of being honest with patients or relatives when someone was seriously harmed by health care. In practice however, the issues are complex and there is confusion about a number of issues relating to disclosure policies in the UK. The interviews generated insights into the difficulties perceived within health care at individual and institutional levels, in relation to fully implementing the Being Open guidance.

Conclusions: There are several clear strategies that the NHS could learn from to implement and sustain a policy of openness. Literature reviews and stakeholder accounts both identified the potential benefits of a culture that was generally more open (not just retrospectively open about serious harm). Future work could usefully evaluate the impact of disclosure on legal challenges within the NHS, best practice in models of support and training for open disclosure, embedding disclosure conversations in critical incident analysis and disclosure of less serious events.

Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Abstract
Deterioration after major surgery is common, with many patients experiencing a medical emergency team (MET) activation. Understanding the triggers for MET calls may help design interventions to prevent deterioration. We aimed to identify triggers for MET activation in non-cardiac surgical patients. A retrospective cohort study of adult patients who experienced a postoperative MET call at a single tertiary hospital was undertaken. The trigger and timing of each MET call and patient characteristics were collected.Four hundred and one MET calls occurred after 23,258 surgical procedures, a rate of 1.7% of all non-cardiac surgical procedures, accounting for 11.7% of all MET calls over the study period. Hypotension (41.4%) was the most common trigger, followed by tachycardia (18.5%), altered conscious state (11.0%), hypoxia (10.0%), tachypnoea (5.7%), 'other' (5.7%), clinical concern (4.0%), increased work of breathing (1.5%) and bradypnoea (0.7%). Cardiac and/or respiratory arrest triggered 1.2% of MET activations. Eighty-six percent of patients had a single MET call, 10.2% had two, 1.8% had three and one patient (0.3%) had four. The median interval between post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU) discharge and MET call was 14.7 h (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 28.9 h). MET calls resulted in intensive care unit (ICU) admission in 40 patients (10%), while 82% remained on the ward, 4% had a MET call shortly after ICU discharge and returned there, 2% returned to theatre, and 2% went to a high dependency unit.Hypotension was the most common trigger for MET calls after non-cardiac surgery. Deterioration frequently occurred within 24 h of PACU discharge. Future research should focus on prevention of hypotension and tachycardia after surgery.

Abstract
The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery provides this professional view on resuscitation in cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery. This document was created using a multimodal methodology for evidence generation including the extrapolation of existing guidelines from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation where possible, our own structured literature reviews on issues particular to cardiac surgery, an international survey on resuscitation hosted by CTSNet and manikin simulations of potential protocols. This protocol differs from existing generic guidelines in a number of areas, the most import of which are the following: successful treatment of cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery is a multi-practitioner activity with six key roles that should be allocated and rehearsed on a regular basis; in ventricular fibrillation, three sequential attempts at defibrillation (where immediately available) should precede external cardiac massage; in asystole or extreme bradycardia, pacing (where immediately available) should precede external cardiac massage; where the above measures fail, and in pulseless electrical activity, early resternotomy is advocated; adrenaline should not be routinely given; protocols for excluding reversible airway and breathing complications and for safe emergency resternotomy are given. This guideline is subject to continuous informal review, and when new evidence becomes available.

Abstract
Objectives: Recently, the definition of sepsis has changed from a physiologic derangement (Sepsis-1 and -2) to organ dysfunction (Sepsis-3) based. We sought to determine the concordance between the different sepsis phenotypes and how that affected mortality.

Design: Retrospective, multicenter study.

Setting: Three academic medical centers.

Patients: 29,459 patients who had suspected infection, defined as obtaining blood cultures and receiving antibiotics: 18,183 (62%) had either Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3.

Measurements and main results: Kappa was used to show agreement between phenotypes. Conditional logistic regression was used to create models of associations between factors and phenotypes and between factors and mortality. About 12,981 patients had Sepsis-2; 12,043 had Sepsis-3; and 6,841 patients had both Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3. Fifty-three percent of Sepsis-2 patients also had Sepsis-3, whereas 57% of Sepsis-3 patients also had Sepsis-2. Agreement between the two phenotypes was poor: kappa = 0.213 ± 0.006. Mortality was 6% in patients with only Sepsis-2, 10% with only Sepsis-3, and 18% in patients who had both phenotypes. Combining the variables in Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 improved the discrimination (C-statistic = 0.742 ± 0.005, p < 0.001) of mortality.

Conclusions: We found that Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3-based sepsis diagnoses represent separate phenotypes with poor agreement. Patients who have both phenotypes are at increased risk of mortality compared with having either phenotype alone. Inclusion of both systemic inflammatory response syndrome and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria in the same model improves the discrimination of mortality.

Abstract
There has been a significant evolution in the definition and management of sepsis over the last three decades. This is driven in part due to the advances made in our understanding of its pathophysiology. There is evidence to show that the manifestations of sepsis can no longer be attributed only to the infectious agent and the immune response it engenders, but also to significant alterations in coagulation, immunosuppression, and organ dysfunction. A revolutionary change in the way we manage sepsis has been the adoption of early goal-directed therapy. This involves the early identification of at-risk patients and prompt treatment with antibiotics, hemodynamic optimization, and appropriate supportive care. This has contributed significantly to the overall improved outcomes with sepsis. Investigation into clinically relevant biomarkers of sepsis are ongoing and have yet to yield effective results. Scoring systems such as the sequential organ failure assessment and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation help risk-stratify patients with sepsis. Advances in precision medicine techniques and the development of targeted therapy directed at limiting the excesses of the inflammatory and coagulatory cascades offer potentially viable avenues for future research. This review summarizes the progress made in the diagnosis and management of sepsis over the past two decades and examines promising avenues for future research.

Abstract
Background: Our aim in the present study was to assess the mortality impact of hospital-acquired post-operative sepsis up to 1 year after hospital discharge among adult non-short-stay elective surgical patients.

Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all elective surgical patients admitted to 82 public acute hospitals between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2012 in New South Wales, Australia. All adult elective surgical admission patients who stayed in hospital for ≥4 days and survived to discharge after post-operative sepsis were identified using the Admitted Patient Data Collection records linked with the Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. We assessed post-discharge mortality rates at 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and 1 year and compared them with those of patients without post-operative sepsis.

Results: We studied 144,503 survivors to discharge. Of these, 1857 (1.3%) had experienced post-operative sepsis. Their post-discharge mortality rates at 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and 1 year were 4.6%, 6.7%, 8.1% and 13.5% (vs 0.7%, 1.2%, 1.5% and 3.8% in the non-sepsis cohort), respectively (P < 0.0001 for all). After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, post-operative sepsis remained independently associated with a higher mortality risk (30-day mortality HR 2.75, 95% CI 2.14-3.53; 60-day mortality HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.94-3.10; 90-day mortality HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.85-2.87; 1-year mortality HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.46-2.00). Being older than 75 years of age (HR 3.50, 95% CI 1.56-7.87) and presence of severe/very severe co-morbidities as defined by Charlson co-morbidity index (severe vs normal HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45-2.89; very severe vs normal HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.49-3.17) were the only other significant independent predictors of increased 1-year mortality.

Conclusions: Among elective surgical patients, post-operative sepsis is independently associated with increased post-discharge mortality up to 1 year after hospital discharge. This risk is particularly high in the first month, in older age patients and in the presence of severe/very severe co-morbidities. This high-risk population can be targeted for interventions.

Abstract
Importance: Rapid source control is recommended to improve patient outcomes in sepsis. Yet there are few data to guide how rapidly source control is required.

Objective: To determine the association between time to source control and patient outcomes in community-acquired sepsis.

Design, setting, and particpants: Multihospital integrated health care system cohort study of hospitalized adults (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017) with community-acquired sepsis as defined by Sepsis-3 who underwent source control procedures. Follow-up continued through January 1, 2019, and data analyses were completed March 17, 2022.

Exposures: Early (<6 hours) compared with late (6-36 hours) source control as well as each hour of source control delay (1-36 hours) from sepsis onset.

Main outcomes and measures: Multivariable models were clustered at the level of hospital with adjustment for patient factors, sepsis severity, resource availability, and the physiologic stress of procedures generating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CI.

Results: Of 4962 patients with sepsis (mean [SD] age, 62 [16] years; 52% male; 85% White; mean [SD] Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 3.8 [2.5]), source control occurred at a median (IQR) of 15.4 hours (5.5-21.7) after sepsis onset, with 1315 patients (27%) undergoing source control within 6 hours. The crude 90-day mortality was similar for early and late source control (n = 177 [14%] vs n = 529 [15%]; P = .35). In multivariable models, early source control was associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of 90-day mortality (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80). This association was greater among gastrointestinal and abdominal (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80) and soft tissue interventions (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) compared with orthopedic and cranial interventions (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.96-1.83; P < .001 for interaction).

Conclusions and relevance: Source control within 6 hours of community-acquired sepsis onset was associated with a reduced risk-adjusted odds of 90-day mortality. Prioritizing the rapid identification of septic foci and initiation of source control interventions can reduce the number of avoidable deaths among patients with sepsis.

Abstract
Despite current antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) being advocated by infectious disease specialists and discussed by national and international policy makers, ASPs coverage remains limited to only certain hospitals as well as specific service lines within hospitals. The ASPs incorporate a variety of strategies to optimize antimicrobial agent use in the hospital, yet the exact set of interventions essential to ASP success remains unknown. Promotion of ASPs across clinical practice is crucial to their success to ensure standardization of antimicrobial agent use within an institution. To effectively accomplish this standardization, providers who actively engage in antimicrobial agent prescribing should participate in the establishment and support of these programs. Hence, surgeons need to play a major role in these collaborations. Surgeons must be aware that judicious antibiotic utilization is an integral part of any stewardship program and necessary to maximize clinical cure and minimize emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The battle against antibiotic resistance should be fought by all healthcare professionals. If surgeons around the world participate in this global fight and demonstrate awareness of the major problem of antimicrobial resistance, they will be pivotal leaders. If surgeons fail to actively engage and use antibiotics judiciously, they will find themselves deprived of the autonomy to treat their patients.

Abstract
Importance: Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination.

Objective: To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock.

Process: A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment).

Key findings from evidence synthesis: Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant.

Recommendations: Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less.

Conclusions and relevance: These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.