Evidence Underpinning the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1): A Systematic Review

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background:

The Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), the sepsis performance measure introduced in 2015 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requires the reporting of up to 5 hemodynamic interventions, as many as 141 tasks, and 3 hours to document for a single patient.

Purpose:

To evaluate whether moderate- or high-level evidence shows that use of the 2015 SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improves survival in adults with sepsis.

Data Sources:

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 November 2017 with no language restrictions.

Study Selection:

Randomized and observational studies of death among adults with sepsis who received versus those who did not receive either the entire SEP-1 bundle or 1 or more SEP-1 hemodynamic interventions, including serial lactate measurements; a fluid infusion of 30 mL/kg of body weight; and assessment of volume status and tissue perfusion with a focused examination, bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography, or fluid responsiveness testing.

Data Extraction:

Two investigators independently extracted study data and assessed each study's risk of bias; 4 authors rated level of evidence by consensus using CMS criteria published in 2013. High- or moderate-level evidence required studies to have no confounders and low risk of bias.

Data Synthesis:

Of 56 563 references, 20 studies (18 reports) met inclusion criteria. One single-center observational study reported lower in-hospital mortality after implementation of the SEP-1 bundle. Sixteen studies (2 randomized and 14 observational) reported increased survival with serial lactate measurements or 30-mL/kg fluid infusions. None of the 17 studies were free of confounders or at low risk of bias. In 3 randomized trials, fluid responsiveness testing did not alter survival.

Limitations:

Few trials, poor-quality and confounded studies, and no studies (with survival outcomes) of the focused examination or bedside cardiovascular ultrasonography. Use of the 2015 version of SEP-1 and 2013 version of CMS evidence criteria, both of which were updated in 2017.

Conclusion:

No high- or moderate-level evidence shows that SEP-1 or its hemodynamic interventions improve survival in adults with sepsis.

Primary Funding Source:

National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42016052716)

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles