Skip to main content

Intensive care unit versus high-dependency care unit admission on mortality in patients with septic shock: let’s think to the survival chain concept for septic shock

To the editor,


We read with great interest the recent article published in the Journal by Endo et al. [1], reporting a positive association between intensive care unit (ICU) compared to high-dependency care units (HDUs) admission and lower 30-day mortality in patients with septic shock.

The authors must be congratulated for these very interesting findings in line with international sepsis guidelines to develop a more appropriate treatment system [2,3,4]. Beyond the prompt recognition and the severity assessment of sepsis prior to treatments implementation [2,3,4], admission to adequate facility to reduce sepsis mortality rate, especially for the sicker ones and the most frail patients, i.e., septic shock, appears to be essential as pointed by Endo et al. [1]. For septic shock patients, the in-hospital “bundle of care” completion, associated with outcome improvement [5], from sepsis detection to treatment delivery requires the presence of a sufficient number of qualified caregivers. In Endo et al. study [1], in HDUs, the patient–nurse ratio is two times lower than in ICU and no full-time physician is needed; thus we can suppose that the delays for severity assessment and treatments initiation are probably longer than for patients admitted to ICU, despite Endo et al. [1] study design does not allow this conclusion. Moreover, we cannot exclude the contribution of an influence of patient recruitment volume on the outcome as previously reported for sepsis, subarachnoid hemorrhage and ECMO [6,7,8]. This is in line with the “bundle of care” concept stressing that not a single treatment alone can improve outcome, but the combination of different treatments; in other words, therapeutic strategies including organizational considerations. Similarly to cardiac arrest and post-cardiac arrest management [9], we believe that there is a need for a specific chain of survival for sepsis, especially for septic shock, started since the prehospital setting to decrease sepsis-related mortality. Beyond early identification and sepsis severity assessment, antibiotic therapy and early hemodynamic optimization are the main elements associated with an increased survival of septic shock patients cared for in the prehospital setting [10,11,12].

Further prospective studies are needed to clarify the real treatment effect of immediate ICU admission for patients suffering from septic shock.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Endo K, Mizuno K, Seki T, Joo WJ, Takeda C, Takeuchi M, et al. Intensive care unit versus high-dependency care unit admission on mortality in patients with septic shock: a retrospective cohort study using Japanese claims data. J Intensive Care. 2022;10(1):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:e1063–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen AX, Simpson SQ, Pallin DJ. 260 sepsis guidelines. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1369–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leisman DE, Doerfler ME, Ward MF, Masick KD, Wie BJ, Gribben JL, et al. Survival benefit and cost savings from compliance with a simplified 3-hour sepsis bundle in a series of prospective, multisite, observational cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):395–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fawzy A, Walkey AJ. Association between hospital case volume of sepsis, adherence to evidence-based processes of care and patient outcomes. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(6):980–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Vespa P, Diringer MN, Participants in the International Multi-Disciplinary Consensus Conference on the Critical Care Management of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. High-volume centers. Neurocrit Care. 2011;15(2):369–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Combes A, Brodie D, Bartlett R, Brochard L, Brower R, Conrad S, International ECMO Network (ECMONet), et al. Position paper for the organization of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation programs for acute respiratory failure in adult patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(5):488–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monsieurs KG, Nolan JP, Bossaert LL, Greif R, Maconochie IK, Nikolaou NI, Perkins GD, Soar J, Truhlář A, Wyllie J, Zideman DA. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 1. Executive summary. ERC Guidelines 2015 Writing Group. Resuscitation. 2015;95:1–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jouffroy R, Gilbert B, Tourtier JP, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, Boularan J, et al. Prehospital bundle of care based on antibiotic therapy and hemodynamic optimization is associated with a 30-day mortality decrease in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(10):1440–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jouffroy R, Hajjar A, Gilbert B, Tourtier JP, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, et al. Prehospital norepinephrine administration reduces 30-day mortality among septic shock patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jouffroy R, Gilbert B, Tourtier JP, Bloch-Laine E, Ecollan P, Bounes V, et al. Impact of prehospital antibiotic therapy on septic shock mortality. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021;25(3):317–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RJ and PG wrote and revised the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romain Jouffroy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

RJ and PG consent for publication.

Competing interests

RJ and PG have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jouffroy, R., Gueye, P. Intensive care unit versus high-dependency care unit admission on mortality in patients with septic shock: let’s think to the survival chain concept for septic shock. j intensive care 10, 52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-022-00643-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-022-00643-2