Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Example: "Heart attack" AND "Los Angeles"

Search

Search for studies:


A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health

Find Studies
Home

Find Studies

About Clinical Studies

Advanced Search
Submit Studies

Resources

Help

Studies by Topic

Glossary

About This Site

Study Record Detail

Text Size

Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis Trial (PHANTASi)


This study is currently recruiting participants. (see Contacts and Locations)

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:

Verified September 2015 by VU University Medical Center

NCT01988428
First received: November 5, 2013
Last updated: September 23, 2015
Last verified: September 2015
History of Changes

Sponsor:

VU University Medical Center


Collaborators:
Stichting Nuts Ohra
Nederlandse Internisten Vereniging ( Dutch Association of Internists)
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Prabath W.B. Nanayakkara, VU University Medical Center
Full Text View

Tabular View

No Study Results Posted

Disclaimer

How to Read a Study Record

Tracking Information
First Received Date ICMJE

November 5, 2013

Last Updated Date

September 23, 2015

Start Date ICMJE

June 2014

Estimated Primary Completion


Date

June 2016 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Current Primary Outcome


Measures ICMJE
(submitted: November 19, 2013)

mortality [ Time Frame: 28 day mortality ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]


To evaluate whether early, pre-hospital administration of antibiotics reduces 28-day mortality in patients
referred to the ED with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock.

Original Primary Outcome


Measures ICMJE

Same as current

Change History

Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01988428 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site

Current Secondary Outcome


Measures ICMJE
(submitted: November 19, 2013)

length of stay [ Time Frame: an expected average of 5 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To compare whether there is a difference in the length of hospital stay in the standard treatment group
versus the intervention group.

Original Secondary Outcome


Measures ICMJE

Same as current

Current Other Outcome


Measures ICMJE
(submitted: September 23, 2015)

quality of life [ Time Frame: one month after discharge hospital ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To evaluate whether early antibiotic administration has a beneficial effect on the quality of life after
discharge from hospital. This will be measured one month after discharge using validated
questionnaires (SF 36).
Length of stay at ICU [ Time Frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of ICU stay, an
expected average of 5 weeks may vary from a few days to several weeks ]
[ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To compare whether there is a difference in the length of ICU stay in the standard treatment group
versus the intervention group.
time to adminstration of antibiotics (door to needle time) [ Time Frame: door to needle time at the ED:
from entry at the ED till time to administration of antibiotics ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To compare whether there is a diference in time to administration of antibiotics in the usual care
group opposed to baseline measurements prior to start of the trial of the trial.

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

Original Other Outcome


Measures ICMJE
(submitted: November 19, 2013)

quality of life [ Time Frame: one month after discharge hospital ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To evaluate whether early antibiotic administration has a beneficial effect on the quality of life after
discharge from hospital. This will be measured one month after discharge using validated
questionnaires (SF 36).
Length of stay at ICU [ Time Frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of ICU stay, an
expected average of 5 weeks may vary from a few days to several weeks ]
[ Designated as safety issue: No ]
To compare whether there is a difference in the length of ICU stay in the standard treatment group
versus the intervention group.

Descriptive Information
Brief Title ICMJE

Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis Trial

Official Title ICMJE

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Effects of Training Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) Personnel in Recognizing and Initiating Treatment in the Prehospital Setting Together With
Early Administration of Antibiotics for Patients Suspected of (Severe) Sepsis and Septic Shock

Brief Summary

Sepsis is one of the most frequent reasons for referral to emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. The
incidence of sepsis is likely to rise in the upcoming years. Sepsis has a tendency to become more serious
when left untreated with a high mortality rate, exceeding even those of myocardial infarction and stroke.
Therefore, much effort has been put in to start with appropriate therapy as early as possible. Early goaldirected therapy (EGDT) in the emergency department with fluid resuscitation, administration of
vasopressors/vasodilators and intravenous antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock has
indeed decreased mortality substantially. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have already
made a significant difference in improving care for patients with acute coronary syndrome, multiple trauma
and stroke. Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock could also benefit greatly from timely pre-hospital
care. Earlier recognition and initiation of treatment by EMS personnel may improve survival even more.
Interestingly, the first hour of ED presentation seems to be the most critical hour. Administration of
antibiotics and fluid resuscitation in the pre-hospital setting will reduce the time to administration
substantially. In adults, to the best of our knowledge, no studies on the effect of pre-hospital administration
of antibiotics have been performed. In children with meningitis, some uncontrolled studies show
contradictory results, most probably due to bias by severity. We propose a non-blinded randomised
multicentre clinical trial study on the efficacy of early, pre-hospital intravenous administration of broad
spectrum antibiotics (ceftriaxone), which are effective against a wide variety of infectious pathogens that
cause most common community-acquired infections) in patients referred to the ED with suspected severe
sepsis or septic shock.
Objective: To evaluate whether early, pre-hospital administration of antibiotics, together with training of
ambulance personnel in recognizing and initiating treatment reduces 28-day mortality in patients referred
to the ED with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock
Study design: Non-blinded randomized multicentre clinical trial nested within a stepped wedge design
Study population: All patients above the age of 18 years, with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock
and transferred to the ED by ambulance, are eligible for study inclusion
Intervention: prehospital antibiotics (ceftriaxone 2000 mg intravenously)
Main study parameters/endpoints: 28-day mortality, hospital length of stay, admission to intensive or
medium care unit (ICU/MC), time to administration of antibiotics. Follow up of one year. QoL after one
month after discharge.

Detailed Description

Introduction Sepsis is one of the most common and life-threatening diseases in the world, causing more
deaths than AIDS, breast cancer and prostate cancer put together (8-10). Despite the fact that the
mortality of sepsis is ten times higher than myocardial infarction and to five times higher than stroke,
relatively little attention is given to sepsis (23-25). In recent years successful clinical care management
pathways have been developed for patients suffering from a myocardial infarction, stroke or a trauma.
Even though there is strong evidence in scientific literature to support the need for a series of timedependent actions, for sepsis this is still not the case.
On 13 September 2012, the first ' World Sepsis Day ' was held with as main objective : 'to increase
awareness for sepsis as a potentially lethal condition, which should be considered as a medical
emergency ' (26). Prompt recognition and treatment are extremely important for improving survival, while
patients who survive sepsis can still continue to suffer from physical or psychological symptoms. The
likelihood and severity of these complications depends on a number of factors including the severity of
sepsis and the length of stay in hospital stay and in ICU.
Definition Sepsis is defined as a proven or strongly suspected infection that is associated with a 'systemic
inflammatory response syndrome ' (SIRS) (29,30). SIRS exists if at least two of the four criteria are met:
abnormal body temperature, increased heart rate (over 90 beats per minute), increased respiratory rate
(more than 20 per minute) and an abnormal white blood cell (WBC) count. There are different degrees of
sepsis on the basis of severity. Sepsis may develop to severe sepsis or septic shock, if treatment is not
timely initiated. Severe sepsis is defined as sepsis with failure of one or more organ systems and septic

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

shock and severe sepsis with persistent low blood pressures despite adequate resuscitation. In particular
organ failure and shock cause high mortality.
In the Netherlands, more than 10,000 patients with sepsis are admitted to a hospital annually, with an
average length of stay (LOS) of 15 days. The medical costs being approximately $ 20,000 per person, the
total cost of severe sepsis in the Netherlands is estimated at nearly 170 million per year (1-3).
Mortality can be very high if sepsis is not timely or adequately treated, especially among the vulnerable
elderly population. The mortality rates vary from 20 to 60 percent, depending on the age and other
underlying diseases such as diabetes and cancer. Even in the VUmc the mortality rates are almost up to
40%. Multiorgan failure due to sepsis and septic shock is the leading cause of death in the ICU (31,32).
The incidence of sepsis has increased in recent years and it is expected that this trend will continue, partly
due to the aging population and partly because of increasing numbers of immune-compromised patients
who are highly susceptible to all kinds of (opportunistic) infections.
Early Goal Directed Therapy (EGDT)
The advent of antibiotics was a major step forward in the treatment of sepsis, causing a mortality decrease
by approximately 25 percent (33,34). It is noteworthy that in the decades hereafter very little progress in
the treatment of sepsis was made, until the introduction of the 'Early goal directed therapy (EGDT). A
study by Rivers and colleagues (4) shows that by applying EGDT during the first six hours after detection
of sepsis, an absolute mortality reduction of almost 16% is achieved. This EGDT consists of a number of
interventions, which have the purpose to optimize hemodynamics as quickly as possible by means of tight
monitoring of arterial / venous pressures and oxygen saturation. The cornerstones of this treatment
include aggressive fluid resuscitation, administration of vasopressors, giving protective ventilation and
administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Several large clinical trials have confirmed the value of EGDT
with sometimes even greater mortality reduction (35-38).
Survival Sepsis Campaign Timely recognition and rapid treatment of sepsis appears crucial, but
recognizing sepsis still remains a challenge: the symptoms are often non-specific and various other
diseases might fit as well. Therefore the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign" (SSC) was launched in 2003 (13),
with the aim of creating awareness for sepsis for better recognition and treatment of sepsis to improve the
prognosis. Through this campaign a directive was developed wherein a somewhat modified form of the
EGDT was incorporated. This directive also states that broad-spectrum antibiotics should be administered
as soon as possible, preferably within one hour after arrival in the emergency room.
Despite extensive attention in the last few years (major campaigns of VMS) in shortening time to
administration of antibiotics (the so called "onset to needle time"), there are still delays in the start up of
antibiotic therapy in the emergency department (ED) (6-7). EDs are still not functioning optimally, with
waiting times sometimes exceeding 6 hours. This is also the conclusion of the report: 'Haastige spoed niet
overal goed' from 2004 (Inspectie der Volksgezondheid). Herein EDs in the Netherlands are described as
the weakest link in the emergency care, and in addition according to this report, little progress in the
quality of care in the emergency department was made from 1994 to 2004. After much effort and
recommendations, progress was made in the last few years but not sufficiently enough (see report ''
Ziekenhuizen goed op weg met implementatie normen voor afdelingen spoedeisende hulp' "). Our study
will therefore be able to contribute to the improvement of both in-hospital and pre-hospital acute care
chain. Not only will we save costly time in the trip till reaching the hospital, but moreover we will also
overcome (potential) delays in the emergency department by starting therapy in the ambulance. Delays
which can amount from one to even six hours.
Why antibiotics should be administered early? The first hour of presentation in the emergency room, also
known as the 'Golden Hour' seems to be the most critical one in the treatment of a septic patient.
Retrospective studies have shown that rapid antibiotic administration could mean better chance of survival
as well as a reduction in the chance of lasting physical problems. Moreover, rapid intervention may
shorten hospital stay as well and even prevent the need for ICU admission (1-5). In daily practice however,
implementation of the SSC directives is not always easy, and there may be several reasons to delay the
start of treatment (6.15). The so-called 'onset to needle time' can be as high as several hours. A recent
pilot study in the VUMC showed that 25% of patients had to wait longer than three hours at the emergency
department before treatment was initiated with antibiotic therapy (16). Not only in the pilot study of our
university but also in a retrospective study conducted by Kumar and colleagues only 32.5% of the patients
received the first gift within the first 3 hours (6) Any delay in the administration of antibiotics, causes an
increase in mortality rate with almost 8 percent per hour!(6).
The later the treatment is initiated, the greater the chance of multiorgan failure. Besides higher mortalityrates, multiorgan failure is directly correlated with more complications, longer hospital stay and higher use
of costly healthcare facilities (10). Therefore it is probably important that the onset to needle time is as
short as possible.
Moreover in the long term sepsis can cause much damage (17-20). Patients who survive sepsis often
suffer for months of complications that arise during or after a prolonged hospitalization in intensive care
(eg. critical illness neuropathy, problems with speech or swallowing by prolonged ventilation). The quality
of life can also sharply deteriorate after experiencing sepsis (18).
An important point to note is that all the studies which state that early antibiotic administration is
associated with improved survival, were retrospective and uncontrolled studies, making occurrence of
selection bias probable. One of the reasons why the doctors may not be very keen on initiating the
antibiotics early (before a definitive diagnosis is made) may be the fact that they consider current evidence
insufficient and incomplete. In order to investigate the optimal timing of antibiotic administration,
prospective randomized controlled studies should be performed at the emergency department. However, it

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

may be unethical to randomize patients and delay initiation of antibiotic therapy at the ED. An alternative
and perhaps a better option is to perform a prospective randomized trial in the pre-hospital setting, i.e in
the ambulances. In current practice, initiation of antibiotic therapy starts at the emergency department
(ED) and not in the ambulances. Pre-hospital antibiotic administration on the one hand may be a solution
to avoid delays in treatment at the ED and on the other hand a way to finally perform a randomised trial to
examine the effect of onset to needle time on clinical endpoints such as improved survival, shorter hospital
stay and better quality of life.
Pre-hospital care, even in sepsis? Ambulance personnel have already made a significant contribution in
improving care for patients with acute coronary syndrome, stroke and multiple trauma (42, 43). Patients
with severe sepsis or septic shock can also benefit from early pre-hospital care (44). Pre-hospital care is
the initial medical care, which is given by ambulance personnel once they reach the patient. Since time
plays a crucial role in the treatment of sepsis, early recognition and initiation of treatment by the
ambulance personnel may help to reduce mortality. The provision of pre-hospital care is associated with a
shorter start-up time of EGDT and antibiotic therapy in the hospital (44-47). In addition, it appears that this
pre-hospital care leads to quicker achievement of an optimal blood pressure, and oxygen saturation.
Therefore, it can be expected that by the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics in the ambulance,
the survival of sepsis can be improved by greatly reducing the time to the administration of the necessary
antibiotics.
To date no randomized controlled trials on the effect of antibiotics in the pre-hospital settings on adults
have been conducted. In children with meningitis some uncontrolled studies have been done. In the
studies by Strang and Cartwright (50,51), a clear beneficial effect on survival is seen after pre-hospital
administration of antibiotics by general practitioners. Hamden and Sorensen (52.53) on the contrary
showed that administration of antibiotics in the pre-hospital setting was associated with worse outcomes. A
possible explanation for these divergent results is that there occurred a strong selection bias. The group
of children receiving pre-hospital antibiotics could be in a more critical stage of illness.
A definitive answer to the question whether administration of antibiotics in pre-hospital setting is effective,
can only be obtained by a prospective randomized controlled trial. In this form of study selection bias can
be avoided.
However, recognition of sepsis is difficult, Suffoletto et al investigated how accurately the ambulance
personnel in Pennsylvania were able to recognize a serious infection, the negative predictive value was
93%. In contrast, 69% of the patients with a severe infection were missed (8). A pilot study in Maastricht
showed (54), that this situation can probably be extrapolated to the Netherlands as well: a large proportion
of patients with septic shock was in fact not recognized as such and transported with a B-ride (low priority
ride). The information transfer is hereby often incomplete or not entirely accurate (from the general
practitioner to the ambulance personnel/hospital or from the ambulance to the ED) causing substantial
delays in initiating treatment. Therefore, much can be gained by training ambulance personnel and getting
them skilled enough in recognizing sepsis and improving the transfer of information.
Research Consortium
Through an intensive collaboration of some major Dutch medical centres and ambulance services, a
research consortium has been established to start a nationwide project in the form of a multicentre
randomized trial: the PHANTASi trial (PreHospital ANTibiotics Against Sepsi) This consortium has a joint
goal namely evaluating the effect of early administration of antibiotics in patients with suspected sepsis in
the pre-hospital setting compared to that with the regular treatment. Our hypothesis in this study is that
administration of antibiotics in the pre-hospital setting will significantly shorten the time to administration of
antibiotics, which subsequently will lead to improved survival. In addition, the pre-hospital administration of
antibiotics shortens hospital stay which, simultaneously has a favorable effect on the cost and quality of
life (QoL).
Importance of this project Sepsis is a major global health problem with an increasing incidence and high
mortality rate. While in the past decades, modern medicine has become increasingly sophisticated, and
the treatment and care around diseases, such as heart failure and cancer is greatly improved, treatment
of sepsis remains a problem with a high mortality. Early administration of antibiotics in critically ill patients
with sepsis could possibly change that. It is not clear what the best time of administration should be,
because how early is early? Moreover, in practice it often happens that the time limits are not, or not
sufficiently monitored closely, whilst increasing the risk of death.
Moreover, the treatment of an acutely ill patient requires teamwork and an optimally functioning acute-care
chain. Through this project it will be possible to investigate whether pre-hospital antibiotic therapy leads to
better outcomes for this category of seriously ill and vulnerable patients.
REFERENCES
1. van Gestel et al. Prevalence and incidence of severe sepsis in Dutch intensive care units. Critical
Care August 2004, Vold 8 No 4
2. Roedig A (RIVM). Ziekenhuisopnamen sepsis en pyemie 2001-2004. In: Volksgezondheid Toekomst
Verkenning, Nationaal Kompas Volksgezondheid. Bilthoven: RIVM
3. J. Bakker, et al Sepsis, een gecompliceerd syndroom met belangrijke medische en maatschappelijke
consequentiesNedTijdschrGeneeskd. 2004;148:975-8
4. Rivers E, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.
NEJM. 2001; 345(19):1368-77.
5. Gaieski et al. Impact of time to antibiotics on survival in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in
whom early goal-directed therapy was initiated in the emergency department. Crit Care Med. 2010
Apr;38(4):1045-53.
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

6. Kumar et al. Duration of hypotension prior to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical
determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1593
7. Vegting et al. Analysing completion times in an academic emergency department: coordination of
care is the weakest link. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine. 2011 Sep; 69(9):392-398
8. Angus DC, et al. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United State: Analysis of incidence, outcome,
and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001;29(7)1303
9. Martin GS, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000.NEJM.
2003;348:1546-54.
10. Vincent JL, Set al. Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients Investigators. Sepsis in European
intensive care units: results of the SOAP study.Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):344-53.
11. Kumar G et al . Nationwide trends of severe sepsis in the 21st century (2000-2007). Chest, 2011.
140(5): p. 1223
12. http://www.vmszorg.nl/10-Themas/Sepsis
13. Dellinger RP, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe
sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:296 -327.
14. Tromp et al. The effects of implementation of the surviving sepsis Campaign in the Netherlands
15. O'Neill et al. Early goal directed therapy (EGDT( for severe sepsis/septic shock: which components
of treatment are more difficult to implement in a community based emergency department?. The
journal of Emergency Med.Vol 42, No5
16. Wetenschappelijk stage: S.B van der Meer, P.W.B. Nanayakkara, E.Schrijver Diagnostics of patients
with sepsis or septic shock at the Emergency Department: Factors contributing to the delay of timely
Administration of Antibiotics. Departments of Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, VU
University Medical Centre Amsterdam, The Netherlands
17. Lazosky et al. Quality of life after septic illness. Journal of Critical Care (2010) 25 406-412
18. Hofhuis et al. The impact of severe sepsis on Health-Related quality of life: A long term follow-up
study. Vol 107. No 6 Dec 2008
19. Iwashyna TJ, Ely EW, Smith DM, et al.: Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability
among survivors of severe sepsis. JAMA, 304: 1787-1794, 2010.
20. Oeyen et al. Quality of life after intensive care: A systematic review of the literature . Crit Care Med
2010 Vol 38. No 12
21. Siddiqui S, Razzak J. Early versus late pre-intensive care unit admission broad spectrum antibiotics
for severe sepsis in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10.
22. http://acuteinterne.medconinternational.com
23. Yeh RW et al Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction. N
Engl J Med, 2010. 362(23): p. 2155-65.
24. Feigin et al, ; Worldwide stroke incidence and early case fatality reporten in 56 population based
studies: a systematic review.
25. Ron Daniels, Surviving the first hours in sepsis: getting the basics right (an intensivist's perspective)
J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66 Suppl 2: ii11-ii23
26. http://world-sepsis-day.org
27. Rattray JE, Johnston M, Wildsmith JA. Predictors of emotional outcomes of intensive care.
Anaesthesia 2005;60:1085-92.
28. Hall MJ et al, Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: A challenge for patients ands hospitals. NCHS
data brief, no 62, Hyattsville, MD: National center for Health statistics, 2011
29. Levy M et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit
Care Med 2003;31(4):1250-56
30. Bone RC. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies
in sepsis. Chest 1992;101:1644.
31. Balk RA. Pathogenesis and management of multiple organ dysfunction or failure in severe sepsis
and septic shock. Crit Care Clin. 2000;16:337-52, vii.
32. Mayr VD et al. Causes of death and determinants of outcome in critically ill patients .Crit Care.
2006;10(6) :R154
33. Anand Kumar, Optimizing Antimicrobial Therapy in sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Clin 25 (2009)
733-751.
34. Hemminki E, Paakkulainen A. Effect of antibiotics on mortality from infectious diseases in Sweden
and Finland. Am J Public Health 1976;66:1180-4.
35. Sivayoham et al. Outcomes from implementing early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis and
septic shock: a 4 year observational cohort study. EJEM 2012, Vol 19 No 4
36. Rivers et al, Early interventions in severe sepsis and septic shock: a review of the evidence one
decade later. Minerva Anestiol.2012; 78:712-2
37. Shapiro et al. A blueprint for a sepsis protocol. Acad Emerg Med April 2005, Vol.12, No 4
38. Jones AE et al. The effect of a quantitative resuscitation strategy on mortality in patients with sepsis:
a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 2734-2739
39. hutchison
40. Barlow et al. Reducing door to antibiotic time in community-acquired pneumonia: controlled before
and after evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Thorax. 2007; (62 (1): 67-74
41. vanTuijn et al. Reduction of the onset to needle time for administration of antibiotics in patients with
a severe infection: a tailored intervention project.Neth. Journal of Medicine, march 2010, Vol.68 no 3
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

42. Ghosh and Pepe, 2009 The critical care cascade: a systems approach. Current opinion in Critical
Care, 15:279-283
43. Robson et al 2009 Sepsis: a need for prehospital intervention?.Emerg Med J, 26:535-538
44. Seymour et al, 2011. Understanding of sepsis among emergency medical services: a survey study.
The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1-12
45. Studnek et al, 2012. The impact of emergency medical services on the ED care of severe sepsis.
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 30: 51-56
46. Band et al, 2011. Arriving by Emergency Medical Services improves time to treatment endpoints for
patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18:934-940
47. Seymour et al,Out-of-hospital fluid in severe sepsis: effect on early resuscitation in the emergency
department. 2010. Prehospital Emergency Care, 14:145-152
48. Proulx et al. Delays in the administration of antibiotics are associated with mortality from adult acute
bacterial meningitis. Q J Med 2005; 98:291-298
49. Miner et al. Presentation, time to antibitotics and mortality of patients with bacterial meningitis at an
urban county medical center. J of Emergency Med. Vol 21. No4, pp387-392, 2001
50. Cartwright K, Strang J, Gossain S, Begg N. Early treatment of meningococcal disease. BMJ 1992;
305(6856):774.
51. Strang JR, Pugh EJ. Meningococcal infections: reducing the case fatality rate by giving penicillin
before admission to hospital. BMJ 1992;305:141-3. (18 July.)
52. Sorensen HT, Nielsen GL, Schonheyder HC, Steffensen FH, Hansen I, Sabroe S et al. Outcome of
pre-hospital antibiotic treatment of meningococcal disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(9):717-721.
53. Harnden A, Ninis N, Thompson M, Perera R, Levin M, Mant D et al. Parenteral penicillin for children
with meningococcal disease before hospital admission: case-control study. BMJ 2006;
332(7553):1295-1298
54. Groenewoudt M, Roest AA, Leijten FM, Stassen PM ; .Eur J Emerg Med. 2013 Nov 6
Study Type ICMJE

Interventional

Study Phase

Not Provided

Study Design ICMJE

Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment

Condition ICMJE

Intervention ICMJE

Study Arm (s)

Publications *

Sepsis
Severe Sepsis
Septic Shock
Drug: Ceftriaxone 2000 mg
Ceftriaxone 2000 mg
Other Name: rocephin (roche)
No Intervention: standard care
standard care
training of ambulance personnel in recognizing sepsis and initiating pre-hospital treatment
Experimental: Antibiotics
ceftriaxone 2000 mg (after taking bloodcultures)
training of ambulance personnel in recognizing sepsis and initiating pre-hospital treatment
Intervention: Drug: Ceftriaxone 2000 mg
Not Provided

* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in
Medline.

Recruitment Information
Recruitment Status ICMJE

Recruiting

Estimated Enrollment ICMJE

2200

Estimated Completion Date

June 2016

Estimated Primary Completion


Date

June 2016 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

Eligibility Criteria ICMJE

Inclusion Criteria:
- All patients older than 18 years who are suspected of sepsis AND have an abnormal temperature (>38
degrees Celsius or < 36 degrees Celsius) in combination with at least one of the following two SIRS
criteria, abnormal pulse (> 90 beats per minute) and/or abnormal respiratory rate (> 20 per minutes)
Exclusion Criteria:
Age <18 years
Known severe allergic reaction to ceftriaxone or to other beta lactam antibiotics
Known pregnancy

Gender

Both

Ages

18 Years and older

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Contacts ICMJE

Listed Location Countries ICMJE

Contact: Prabath Nanayakkara, M.D, PhD

0031204446905

p.nanayakkara@vumc.nl

Contact: Nadia Alam, M.D.

0031204444362

n.alam@vumc.nl

Netherlands

Removed Location Countries

Administrative Information
NCT Number ICMJE

NCT01988428

Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE

NL42001.029.13

Has Data Monitoring Committee

No

Responsible Party

Prabath W.B. Nanayakkara, VU University Medical Center

Study Sponsor ICMJE

VU University Medical Center

Collaborators ICMJE

Stichting Nuts Ohra


Nederlandse Internisten Vereniging ( Dutch Association of Internists)

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

Investigators ICMJE

Principal
Investigator:

Prabath WB Nanayakkara, MD,


PhD

VU Medical Center (VUmc), Amsterdam

Principal
Investigator:

P. Stassen, MD, Phd

Maastricht Medical Center, Maastricht

Principal
Investigator:

F. Holleman, MD, Phd

Academic Medical Center (AMC),


Amsterdam

Principal
Investigator:

G.J Timmers, MD, Phd

Amstelland Hospital, Amstelveen

Principal
Investigator:

W.E.M Schouten, MD

Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis,


Amsterdam

Principal
Investigator:

E. Oskam, MD

Albert Schweitzer Hospital

Principal
Investigator:

N. Posthuma

Bovenij Hospital, Amsterdam

Principal
Investigator:

A. Dees, MD, PhD

Ikazia Hospital

Principal
Investigator:

H.R. Haak, MD, PhD

Maxima Medisch Centrum, Eindhoven

Principal
Investigator:

H. Nguyen, MD, PhD

Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam

Principal
Investigator:

A. Govers, MD,PhD

St.Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam

Principal
Investigator:

J. Veenstra, MD, PhD

St.Lucas Andreas Hospital, Amsterdam

Principal
Investigator:

B. Kors, MD, PhD

Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem Zuid

Principal
Investigator:

T.C. Cheung, MD

Rode Kruis Hospital, Beverwijk

Principal
Investigator:

G.H. Louis-Wattel, MD

Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp

Principal
Investigator:

H. Ammerlaan, MD

Catharina Hospital Eindhoven

Principal
Investigator:

A. Toorians, MD, PhD

St.Anna Hospital, Geldrop

Principal
Investigator:

M.A.M Verhoeven, MD, PhD

Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam

Principal
Investigator:

B. Kanen

Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam

Principal
Investigator:

L. Slobbe, MD, PhD

Haven Hospital, Rotterdam

Information Provided By

VU University Medical Center

Verification Date

September 2015

ICMJE

Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP

TO TOP

For Patients and Families

For Researchers

For Study Record Managers

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

HOME

RSS FEEDS

SITE MAP

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Copyright
Privacy
Accessibility
Viewers and Players
U.S. National Library of Medicine
U.S. National Institutes of Health

DISCLAIMER

CONTACT NLM HELP DESK

Freedom of Information Act


USA.gov
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com