Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Mouncey, P.R., Osborn, T.M., Power, S., Harrison, D.A., Sadique, Z., Grieve, R.D., et al. (2015) Trial of Early, Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Septic Shock. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 1301-1311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1500896

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Use of Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Emergency Department before and after the Sepsis Trilogy

    AUTHORS: Loren K. Reed, Benton R. Hunter, Tyler M. Stepsis

    KEYWORDS: Sepsis, Early Goal-Directed Therapy, Septic Shock, EGDT

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol.4 No.2, June 13, 2016

    ABSTRACT: The management of sepsis evolved recently with the publication of three large trials (referred to as the sepsis trilogy) investigating the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). Our goal was to determine if the publication of these trials has influenced the use of EGDT when caring for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department (ED). In February 2014, we surveyed a sample of board-certified emergency medicine physicians regarding their use of EGDT in the ED. A follow-up survey was sent after the publication of the sepsis trilogy. Data was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals to determine if there was a change in the use of EGDT following the publication of the above trials. Subgroup analyses were also performed with regard to academic affiliation and emergency department volume. Surveys were sent to 308 and 350 physicians in the pre-and post-publication periods, respectively. Overall, ED use of EGDT did not change with publication of the sepsis trilogy, 48.7% (CI 39.3% - 58.2%) before and 50.5% (CI 40.6% - 60.3%) after. Subgroup analysis revealed that academic-affiliated EDs significantly decreased EGDT use following the sepsis trilogy while nonacademic departments significantly increased EGDT use. Use of EGDT was significantly greater in community departments versus academic departments following the publication of the sepsis trilogy. There was no change overall in the use of EGDT protocols when caring for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, but subgroup analyses revealed that academic departments decreased their use of EGDT while community departments increased use of EGDT. This may be due to varying rates of uptake of the medical literature between academic and community healthcare systems.