Table 4.

Comparison of articles related to sepsis management in EMS

	Setting	Outcome	Numbers	Results
Seymour et al¹¹	EMS only	SOFA scores	216	Hypotension, lower GCS, including respiratory rate, were associated with higher SOFA score
Studnek et al¹⁰	ED sepsis patients: EMS vs walk-in	ED antibiotics initiation	311	Shorter time to antibiotics and EGDT, higher SOFA score
Wang et al¹³	All ED infected patients: EMS vs walk-in	Mortality	4613	Higher mortality in EMS (OR 1.8); EMS more likely severe sepsis or shock
Band et al⁹	All ED: EMS vs walk-in; severe sepsis only	ED antibiotics time, ED IVF and mortality	983	No mortality benefit
Seymour et al¹²	EMS patients: receiving IVF vs no fluids	Resuscitation endpoints (CVP, MAP, SCvO₂)	52	Did not achieve any endpoint differences
Seymour et al¹⁵	EMS severe sepsis vs AMI and stroke	Incidence rates	>400,000	3.3% for severe sepsis vs 2.3% for AMI and 2.2% for stroke; of EMS severe sepsis, 50% were admitted to ICU, 19% died
Femling et al (present study)	EMS vs walk-in and EMS patients with fluids (<1 L) vs >1 L fluids	ED time to antibiotics, time to central line placement, and mortality	485	Decreased time to antibiotics and time to central line placement, but no mortality difference in EMS; decrease in length of stay in EMS patients receiving > 1 L fluids

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CVP central venous pressure; ED, emergency department; EGDT, early goal-directed therapy; EMS, emergency medical services; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; ICU, intensive care unit; IVF, intravenous fluids; MAP, mean arterial pressure; OR, odds ratio; SCvO₂, superior vena cava oxygen saturation; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.