Prognostic Role of Serum Albumin in Predicting 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Infections in Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Infections in emergency departments (EDs) are insidious clinical conditions characterised by high rates of hospitalisation and mortality in the short-to-medium term. The serum albumin, recently demonstrated as a prognostic biomarker in septic patients in intensive care units, could be an early marker of severity upon arrival of infected patients in the ED. Aim: To confirm the possible prognostic role of the albumin concentration recorded upon arrival of patients with infection. Methods: A prospective single-centre study was performed in the ED of the General Hospital of Merano, Italy, between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. All enrolled patients with infection were tested for serum albumin concentration. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. The predictive role of albumin was assessed by logistic regression and decision tree analysis adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, national early warning score, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. Results: 962 patients with confirmed infection were enrolled. The median SOFA score was 1 (0–3) and the mean serum albumin level was 3.7 g/dL (SD 0.6). Moreover, 8.9% (86/962) of patients died within 30 days. Albumin was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.767 (95% CI 2.192–6.437), p < 0.001. Decision tree analysis indicated that at low SOFA scores, albumin had a good predictive ability, indicating a progressive mortality risk reduction in concentrations above 2.75 g/dL (5.2%) and 3.52 g/dL (2%). Conclusions: Serum albumin levels at ED admission are predictive of 30-day mortality in infected patients, showing better predictive abilities in patients with low-to-medium SOFA scores.

Related collections

Most cited references 23

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

Christopher W Seymour, Foster C Gesten, Hallie C Prescott … (2017)

Background In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. Methods We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. Results Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). Conclusions More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

0 comments Cited 697 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hypoalbuminemia.

Angelo Gatta, Alberto Verardo, Massimo Bolognesi (2012)

Hypoalbuminemia is frequently observed in hospitalized patients and it can be associated with several different diseases, including cirrhosis, malnutrition, nephrotic syndrome and sepsis. Regardless of its cause, hypoalbuminemia has a strong predictive value on mortality and morbidity. Over the years, the rationale for the use of albumin has been extensively debated and the indications for human serum albumin supplementation have changed. As the knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms of the pertinent diseases has increased, the indications for intravenous albumin supplementation have progressively decreased. The purpose of this brief article is to review the causes of hypoalbuminemia and the current indications for intravenous administration of albumin. Based on the available data and considering the costs, albumin supplementation should be limited to well-defined clinical scenarios and to include patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, patients with cirrhosis undergoing large volume paracentesis, the treatment of type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis, and therapeutic plasmapheresis with exchange of large volumes of plasma. While albumin supplementation is accepted also in other clinical situations such as burns, nephrotic syndrome, hemorrhagic shock and prevention of hepatorenal syndrome, within these contexts it does not represent a first-choice treatment nor is its use supported by widely accepted guidelines.

0 comments Cited 142 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Does this adult patient with suspected bacteremia require blood cultures?

Bryan Coburn, Andrew M. Morris, George Tomlinson … (2012)

Clinicians order blood cultures liberally among patients in whom bacteremia is suspected, though a small proportion of blood cultures yield true-positive results. Ordering blood cultures inappropriately may be both wasteful and harmful. To review the accuracy of easily obtained clinical and laboratory findings to inform the decision to obtain blood cultures in suspected bacteremia. A MEDLINE and EMBASE search (inception to April 2012) yielded 35 studies that met inclusion criteria for evaluating the accuracy of clinical variables for bacteremia in adult immunocompetent patients, representing 4566 bacteremia and 25,946 negative blood culture episodes. Data were extracted to determine the prevalence and likelihood ratios (LRs) of findings for bacteremia. The pretest probability of bacteremia varies depending on the clinical context, from low (eg, cellulitis: 2%) to high (eg, septic shock: 69%). Elevated temperatures alone do not accurately predict bacteremia (for ≥38°C [>100.3°F], LR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.4]; for ≥38.5°C [>101.2°F], LR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1-2.0]), nor does isolated leukocytosis (LR, <1.7). The severity of chills graded on an ordinal scale (shaking chills, LR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.0-7.2) may be more useful. Both the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and a multivariable decision rule with major and minor criteria are sensitive (but not specific) predictors of bacteremia (SIRS, negative LR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.03-0.26]; decision rule, negative LR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.04-0.17]). Blood cultures should not be ordered for adult patients with isolated fever or leukocytosis without considering the pretest probability. SIRS and the decision rule may be helpful in identifying patients who do not need blood cultures. These conclusions do not apply to immunocompromised patients or when endocarditis is suspected.