The effect of corticosteroid use in septic shock on secondary infection frequency, microorganism species, morbidity, and mortality

Duygu Kayar Calili, Seval Izdes, Levent Ozturk
{"title":"The effect of corticosteroid use in septic shock on secondary infection frequency, microorganism species, morbidity, and mortality","authors":"Duygu Kayar Calili, Seval Izdes, Levent Ozturk","doi":"10.23950/jcmk/13690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<b>Aim:</b> We aimed to examine the effect of corticosteroid treatment in vasopressor-refractory septic shock on secondary infections, microorganism species, survival, and length of hospital stay.<br /> <b>Material and methods: </b>In this observational study, the records of 108 septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were reviewed.<i> </i>Patients were divided into two groups: the corticosteroid group (Group S, n=60) and the non-corticosteroid group (Group S-0, n=48). The results of three cultures [blood, endotracheal aspirate (eta), urine, wound] taken after ICU admission were recorded. The groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, culture growth rates and microorganisms, length of hospital stay, and survival rates.<br /> <b>Results:</b> The hospital (p=0.043) and ICU stay (p=0.035) were longer in Group S. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of survival (p&amp;gt;0.05). The growth rate of the first urine culture was significantly higher in Group S-0 than in Group S (p=0.018), but there was no difference in terms of microorganism species (p&amp;gt;0.05). There was no significant difference in growth rates and microorganism species in blood, eta and wound cultures (p&amp;gt;0.05), but increase in growth rates were observed in the 2nd and 3rd eta and, wound cultures compared to first culture in Group S (p&amp;lt;0.05).<br /> <b>Conclusion:</b> There was no difference between the patients who received and did not receive corticosteroid treatment in septic shock in terms of culture growth rates, growing microorganism species and mortality; however, the frequency of growth in eta and wound cultures increased and the length of hospital stay was longer in patients who received corticosteroids.","PeriodicalId":32426,"journal":{"name":"Kazakstannyn Klinikalyk Medicinasy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kazakstannyn Klinikalyk Medicinasy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/13690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to examine the effect of corticosteroid treatment in vasopressor-refractory septic shock on secondary infections, microorganism species, survival, and length of hospital stay.
Material and methods: In this observational study, the records of 108 septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: the corticosteroid group (Group S, n=60) and the non-corticosteroid group (Group S-0, n=48). The results of three cultures [blood, endotracheal aspirate (eta), urine, wound] taken after ICU admission were recorded. The groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, culture growth rates and microorganisms, length of hospital stay, and survival rates.
Results: The hospital (p=0.043) and ICU stay (p=0.035) were longer in Group S. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of survival (p&gt;0.05). The growth rate of the first urine culture was significantly higher in Group S-0 than in Group S (p=0.018), but there was no difference in terms of microorganism species (p&gt;0.05). There was no significant difference in growth rates and microorganism species in blood, eta and wound cultures (p&gt;0.05), but increase in growth rates were observed in the 2nd and 3rd eta and, wound cultures compared to first culture in Group S (p&lt;0.05).
Conclusion: There was no difference between the patients who received and did not receive corticosteroid treatment in septic shock in terms of culture growth rates, growing microorganism species and mortality; however, the frequency of growth in eta and wound cultures increased and the length of hospital stay was longer in patients who received corticosteroids.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
感染性休克患者使用皮质类固醇对继发感染频率、微生物种类、发病率和死亡率的影响
& lt; b>目的:& lt; / b>我们的目的是研究抗利尿药难治性脓毒性休克患者皮质类固醇治疗对继发感染、微生物种类、生存和住院时间的影响。< >材料与方法:</b>本观察性研究回顾了108例重症监护病房(ICU)脓毒性休克患者的记录。<i>患者分为皮质类固醇组(S组,n=60)和非皮质类固醇组(S-0组,n=48)。记录患者入ICU后取血、气管内吸出液、尿、伤口三种培养结果。比较两组的人口学特征、培养物生长速率和微生物、住院时间和生存率。& lt; b>结果:& lt; / b>s组患者住院时间较长(p=0.043), ICU住院时间较长(p=0.035),两组患者生存时间差异无统计学意义(p= 0.05)。S-0组首次尿培养物的生长速度显著高于S组(p=0.018),但微生物种类差异无统计学意义(p= 0.05)。S组血液、eta和创面培养物的生长速率和微生物种类差异不显著(p p amp;gt;0.05),但第2、3次eta和创面培养物的生长速率较第1次培养物有所增加(p p amp;lt;0.05)。& lt; b>结论:& lt; / b>接受和未接受皮质类固醇治疗的脓毒性休克患者在培养物生长速率、生长微生物种类和死亡率方面没有差异;然而,在接受皮质类固醇治疗的患者中,eta和伤口培养物的生长频率增加,住院时间更长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The effect of corticosteroid use in septic shock on secondary infection frequency, microorganism species, morbidity, and mortality Conventional videolaryngoscope versus 3D printed videolaryngoscope A retrospective CT based comparative analysis of available screw pathways to determine optimal iliac screw trajectory Determining incontinence awareness, attitude, and frequency in female students enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences How fixation affects the results of lymph node immunophenotyping by flow cytometry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1