To describe the effectiveness of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles with regard to both implementation and outcome in patients with septic shock and to determine the contribution of the various elements of the bundles to the outcome.
Quasi-experimental study with a historical comparison group.
The three medical–surgical intensive care units of an academic tertiary care center.
A total of 384 adult patients in septic shock were enrolled after the educational intervention (September 2005–August 2008) and 96 patients in the historical group (June 2004–May 2005).
A hospital-wide quality improvement program based on the implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines performed between June 2005 and August 2005.
In-hospital mortality was reduced from 57.3% in the historical group to 37.5% in the intervention group (p = .001). This difference remained significant after controlling for confounding factors (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28–0.89). The intervention group had also lower length of stay for survivors in the hospital (36.2 ± 34.8 days vs. 41.0 ± 26.3 days; p = .043) and in the intensive care units (8.4 ± 9.8 days vs. 11.0 ± 9.5 days; p = .004). Improvements in survival were related to the number of bundle interventions completed (p for trend <.001). Compliance with six or more interventions of the 6-hr resuscitation bundle was an independent predictor of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.17–0.53; p <.001). The only single intervention with impact on mortality was the achievement of ScvO2 ≥70% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.38–0.99; p = .048).
The implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines was associated with a significant decrease in mortality. The benefits depend on the number of interventions accomplished within the time limits. The 6-hr resuscitation bundle showed greater compliance and effectiveness than the 24-hr management bundle. (Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1036–1043)
Assistant Medical Director (AC-O), Intensive Care Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Critical Care Physician (BS), Intensive Care Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla. Santander, Spain; Immunology Fellow (LAG-A), Instituto de Formación e Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Critical Care Physician (MSH), Intensive Care Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Director of the Intensive Care Medicine Department (FO), Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain; Professor (JL), University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain; and Professor (MD-R), University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain.
This study has been supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS PI070723).
The work was entirely performed at the Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla.
For information regarding this article, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org