To characterize the current scope and practices of centers performing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) on the undifferentiated patient with cardiac arrest in the emergency department. We contacted all US centers in January 2016 that had submitted adult eCPR cases to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry and surveyed them, querying for programs that had performed eCPR in the Emergency Department (ED ECMO). Our objective was to characterize the following domains of ED ECMO practice: program characteristics, patient selection, devices and techniques, and personnel. Among 99 centers queried, 70 responded. Among these, 36 centers performed ED ECMO. Nearly 93% of programs are based at academic/teaching hospitals. 65% of programs are less than 5 years old, and 60% of programs perform ≤3 cases per year. Most programs (90%) had inpatient eCPR or salvage ECMO programs prior to starting ED ECMO programs. The majority of programs do not have formal inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most programs preferentially obtain vascular access via the percutaneous route (70%) and many (40%) use mechanical CPR during cannulation. The most commonly used console is the Maquet Rotaflow(®). Cannulation is most often performed by cardiothoracic (CT) surgery, and nearly all programs (>85%) involve CT surgeons, perfusionists, and pharmacists. Over a third of centers that submitted adult eCPR cases to ELSO have performed ED ECMO. These programs are largely based at academic hospitals, new, and have low volumes. They do not have many formal inclusion or exclusion criteria, and devices and techniques are variable.

Sepsis accounts for 30% to 50% of all in-hospital deaths in the United States. Other than antibiotics and source control, management strategies are largely supportive with fluid resuscitation and respiratory, renal, and circulatory support. Intravenous vitamin C in conjunction with thiamine and hydrocortisone has recently been suggested to improve outcomes in patients with sepsis in a single-center before-and-after study. However, before this therapeutic strategy is adopted, a rigorous assessment of its efficacy is needed. The Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial is a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. It will enroll patients with sepsis causing respiratory or circulatory compromise or both. Patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 h or matching placebos until a total of 16 administrations have been completed or intensive care unit discharge occurs (whichever is first). Patients randomly assigned to the comparator group are permitted to receive open-label stress-dose steroids at the discretion of the treating clinical team. The primary outcome is consecutive days free of ventilator and vasopressor support (VVFDs) in the 30 days following randomization. The key secondary outcome is mortality at 30 days. Sample size will be determined adaptively by using interim analyses with pre-stated stopping rules to allow the early recognition of a large mortality benefit if one exists and to refocus on the more sensitive outcome of VVFDs if an early large mortality benefit is not observed. VICTAS is a large, multi-center, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that will test the efficacy of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone as a combined therapy in patients with respiratory or circulatory dysfunction (or both) resulting from sepsis. Because the components of this therapy are inexpensive and readily available and have very favorable risk profiles, demonstrated efficacy would have immediate implications for the management of sepsis worldwide. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350 . First registered on April 26, 2018, and last verified on December 20, 2018. Protocol version: 1.4, January 9, 2019

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score has been proposed as a means to rapidly identify adult patients with suspected infection, in pre-hospital, Emergency Department (ED), or general hospital ward locations, who are in a high-risk category with increased likelihood of “poor outcomes:” a greater than 10% chance of dying or an increased likelihood of spending 3 or more days in the ICU. This score is intended to replace the use of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria as a screening tool; however, its role in ED screening and identification has yet to be fully elucidated. In this retrospective observational study, we explored the performance of triage qSOFA (tqSOFA), maximum qSOFA, and first initial serum lactate (> 3 mmol/L) at predicting in-hospital mortality and compared these results to those for the initial SIRS criteria obtained in triage. A total of 2859 sepsis cases were included and the in-hospital mortality rate was 14.4%. The sensitivity of tqSOFA ≥ 2 and maximum qSOFA ≥ 2 to predict in-hospital mortality were 33% and 69%, respectively. For comparison, the triage SIRS criteria and the initial lactate > 3 mmol/L had sensitivities of 82% and 65%, respectively. These results demonstrate that in a large ED sepsis database the earliest measurement of end organ impairment, tqSOFA, performed poorly at identifying patients at increased risk of mortality and maximum qSOFA did not significantly outperform initial serum lactate levels.