Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jul 1;7(7):e2422823.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22823.

Sepsis Alert Systems, Mortality, and Adherence in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyung-Jun Kim  1   2 , Ryoung-Eun Ko  3 , Sung Yoon Lim  1   2 , Sunghoon Park  4 , Gee Young Suh  3 , Yeon Joo Lee  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Sepsis Alert Systems, Mortality, and Adherence in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyung-Jun Kim et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Early detection and management of sepsis are crucial for patient survival. Emergency departments (EDs) play a key role in sepsis management but face challenges in timely response due to high patient volumes. Sepsis alert systems are proposed to expedite diagnosis and treatment initiation per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

Objective: To review and analyze the association of sepsis alert systems in EDs with patient outcomes.

Data sources: A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2004, to November 19, 2023.

Study selection: Studies that evaluated sepsis alert systems specifically designed for adult ED patients were evaluated. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed, full-text articles in English that reported on mortality, ICU admissions, hospital stay duration, and sepsis management adherence. Exclusion criteria included studies that lacked a control group or quantitative reports.

Data extraction and synthesis: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction using a standardized form. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. The data were synthesized using a random-effects model due to the expected heterogeneity among the included studies.

Main outcomes and measures: Key outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit admissions, hospital stay duration, and adherence to the sepsis bundle.

Results: Of 3281 initially identified studies, 22 (0.67%) met inclusion criteria, encompassing 19 580 patients. Sepsis alert systems were associated with reduced mortality risk (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91) and length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.15; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.11). These systems were also associated with better adherence to sepsis bundle elements, notably in terms of shorter time to fluid administration (SMD, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.32), blood culture (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.21), antibiotic administration (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.29), and lactate measurement (SMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.08). Electronic alerts were particularly associated with reduced mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92) and adherence with blood culture guidelines (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27).

Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that sepsis alert systems in EDs were associated with better patient outcomes along with better adherence to sepsis management protocols. These systems hold promise for enhancing ED responses to sepsis, potentially leading to better patient outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flowchart of the Study Selection Process
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Association of Sepsis Alert Systems With Mortality of Patients in the Emergency Department
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Association of Sepsis Alerts With the Time to Each Sepsis Bundle Event in the Emergency Department
SMD indicates standardized mean difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD, et al. Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from 2 independent cohorts. JAMA. 2014;312(1):90-92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5804 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-377. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235-2244. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703058 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms