The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implementation and outcomes of the Multiple Urgent Sepsis Therapies (MUST) protocol*
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the effectiveness of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary sepsis treatment protocol with regard to both implementation and outcomes and to compare the mortality rates and therapies of patients with septic shock with similar historical controls. DESIGN: Prospective, interventional cohort study with a historical control comparison group. SETTING: Urban, tertiary care, university hospital with 46,000 emergency department visits and 4,100 intensive care unit admissions annually. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria were a) emergency department patients aged > or =18 yrs, b) suspected infection, and c) lactate of >4 mmol/L or septic shock. Exclusion criteria were a) emergent operation, b) prehospital cardiac arrest, and c) comfort measures only. Time period: protocol, November 10, 2003, through November 9, 2004; historical controls, February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. INTERVENTION: A sepsis treatment pathway incorporating empirical antibiotics, early goal-directed therapy, drotrecogin alfa, steroids, intensive insulin therapy, and lung-protective ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 116 protocol patients, with a mortality rate of 18% (11-25%), of which 79 patients had septic shock. Comparing these patients with 51 historical controls, protocol patients received more fluid (4.0 vs. 2.5 L crystalloid, p < .001), earlier antibiotics (90 vs. 120 mins, p < .013), more appropriate empirical coverage (97% vs. 88%, p < .05), more vasopressors in the first 6 hrs (80% vs. 45%, p < .001), tighter glucose control (mean morning glucose, 123 vs. 140, p < .001), and more frequent assessment of adrenal function (82% vs. 10%, p < .001), with a nonstatistically significant increase in dobutamine use (14% vs. 4%, p = .06) and red blood cell transfusions (30% vs. 18%, p = .07) in the first 24 hrs. For protocol patients with septic shock, 28-day in-hospital mortality was 20.3% compared with 29.4% for historical controls (p = .3). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical implementation of a comprehensive sepsis treatment protocol is feasible and is associated with changes in therapies such as time to antibiotics, intravenous fluid delivery, and vasopressor use in the first 6 hrs. No statistically significant decrease in mortality was demonstrated, as this trial was not sufficiently powered to assess mortality benefits.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200005043421801 · Cited by 12,941
Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock
Rivers, E., Nguyen, B., Havstad, S., Ressler, J., Muzzin, A., Knoblich, B., Peterson, E., & Tomlanovich, M. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa010307 · Cited by 10,743
Cited by
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock
Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Annane, D., Gerlach, H., Opal, S. M., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Douglas, I. S., Jaeschke, R., et al. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827e83af · Cited by 9,694
Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury.
Talmor, D., Sarge, T., Malhotra, A., O'Donnell, C. R., Ritz, R., Lisbon, A., Novack, V., & Loring, S. H. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0708638 · Cited by 1,149
Self-citationGaieski, D. F., Mikkelsen, M. E., Band, R. A., Pines, J. M., Massone, R., Furia, F. F., Shofer, F. S., & Goyal, M. (2010) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181cc4824 · Cited by 970
Levy, M. M., Dellinger, R. P., Townsend, S. R., Linde-Zwirble, W. T., Marshall, J. C., Bion, J., Schorr, C., Artigas, A., Ramsay, G., Beale, R., et al. (2010) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3 · Cited by 868
Marik, P. E., & Cavallazzi, R. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a25fd · Cited by 866
Metadata
- Authors
- Shapiro, N. I., Howell, M. D., Talmor, D., Lahey, D., Ngo, L., Buras, J., Wolfe, R. E., Weiss, J. W., & Lisbon, A.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1025-1032
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144830469
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.