[Early source control of infection in patients seen in the emergency department: a systematic review].

A Julián-Jiménez, R Lorenzo Álvarez, V Gutiérrez Bueno, M Sánchez Trujillo, D Eduardo García
{"title":"[Early source control of infection in patients seen in the emergency department: a systematic review].","authors":"A Julián-Jiménez, R Lorenzo Álvarez, V Gutiérrez Bueno, M Sánchez Trujillo, D Eduardo García","doi":"10.37201/req/027.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The term source (or focus) control encompasses all those physical measures that can be used to reduce the inoculum and modify those factors in the infectious medium that promote microbial growth or foreign antimicrobial defenses of the host. The main objective of this systematic review (SR) is to know and compare whether early detection and control of the focus (in less than 6 hours) in adult patients treated in the ED for severe infection or sepsis, compared to not controlling the focus or delayed focus control (more than 12 hours) is more effective and safer (improves clinical evolution, mortality, complications, hospital stay or need for ICU admission).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review is carried out following the PRISMA regulations in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to December 31, 2023 without language restrictions and using a combination of MESH terms: \"Source Control\", \"Early\" \"Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis\", \"Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department\" and \"Adults\". Observational cohort studies were included. No meta-analysis techniques were performed, but results were compared narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,658 articles were identified, of which 2 that met the inclusion criteria and were classified as high quality were finally analyzed. The included studies represent a total of 2,404 patients with 678 cases in which an intervention was performed to control the focus (28.20%). In the first study, 28-day mortality was lower in patients who underwent an intervention to control the focus (12.3% vs. 22.5%; P <0.001), with an adjusted HR of 0.538 (95% CI: 0.389-0.744; P<0.001). In the second, it was demonstrated that the time elapsed from when the patient was evaluated for the first time and was hemodynamically stabilized, until the start of surgery was associated with his survival at 60 days with an OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.45; P <0.0001). In fact, for each hour of delay an adjusted OR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16-0.47; P<0.0001) is established. So if the intervention is performed before 2 hours at 60 days, 98% of the patients are still alive, if it is performed between 2-4 hours it is reduced to 78%, if it is between 4-6 hours it drops to 55%, but if it is done for more than 6 hours there will be no survivors at 60 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review shows that source control carried out after the evaluation of patients attending the ED reduces short-term mortality (30-60 days) and that it would be advisable to implement any required source control intervention as soon as possible, ideally early (within 6 hours).</p>","PeriodicalId":94198,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia","volume":" ","pages":"323-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11231492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37201/req/027.2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The term source (or focus) control encompasses all those physical measures that can be used to reduce the inoculum and modify those factors in the infectious medium that promote microbial growth or foreign antimicrobial defenses of the host. The main objective of this systematic review (SR) is to know and compare whether early detection and control of the focus (in less than 6 hours) in adult patients treated in the ED for severe infection or sepsis, compared to not controlling the focus or delayed focus control (more than 12 hours) is more effective and safer (improves clinical evolution, mortality, complications, hospital stay or need for ICU admission).

Methods: A systematic review is carried out following the PRISMA regulations in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to December 31, 2023 without language restrictions and using a combination of MESH terms: "Source Control", "Early" "Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis", "Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department" and "Adults". Observational cohort studies were included. No meta-analysis techniques were performed, but results were compared narratively.

Results: A total of 1,658 articles were identified, of which 2 that met the inclusion criteria and were classified as high quality were finally analyzed. The included studies represent a total of 2,404 patients with 678 cases in which an intervention was performed to control the focus (28.20%). In the first study, 28-day mortality was lower in patients who underwent an intervention to control the focus (12.3% vs. 22.5%; P <0.001), with an adjusted HR of 0.538 (95% CI: 0.389-0.744; P<0.001). In the second, it was demonstrated that the time elapsed from when the patient was evaluated for the first time and was hemodynamically stabilized, until the start of surgery was associated with his survival at 60 days with an OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.45; P <0.0001). In fact, for each hour of delay an adjusted OR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16-0.47; P<0.0001) is established. So if the intervention is performed before 2 hours at 60 days, 98% of the patients are still alive, if it is performed between 2-4 hours it is reduced to 78%, if it is between 4-6 hours it drops to 55%, but if it is done for more than 6 hours there will be no survivors at 60 days.

Conclusions: This review shows that source control carried out after the evaluation of patients attending the ED reduces short-term mortality (30-60 days) and that it would be advisable to implement any required source control intervention as soon as possible, ideally early (within 6 hours).

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
[急诊科病人感染的早期源头控制:系统性回顾]。
目标:病源(或病灶)控制一词包括所有可用于减少接种体和改变感染介质中促进微生物生长或宿主抗菌防御功能的因素的物理措施。本系统综述(SR)的主要目的是了解和比较在急诊室接受治疗的严重感染或败血症成人患者中,早期发现并控制病灶(少于 6 小时)与不控制病灶或延迟控制病灶(超过 12 小时)相比,是否更有效、更安全(改善临床演变、死亡率、并发症、住院时间或入住重症监护病房的需求):方法:按照 PRISMA 规定,从 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 12 月 31 日,在 PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE、Lilacs、Cochrane、Epistemonikos、Tripdatabase 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 等数据库中进行了系统性综述,没有语言限制,并使用了 MESH 术语组合:"源头控制"、"早期"、"感染或细菌感染或败血症"、"急症或急诊或急诊科 "和 "成人"。纳入了观察性队列研究。未进行荟萃分析,但对结果进行了叙述性比较:结果:共发现 1,658 篇文章,最终分析了其中 2 篇符合纳入标准且质量较高的文章。纳入的研究共涉及 2,404 名患者,其中 678 例患者采取了干预措施以控制病灶(28.20%)。在第一项研究中,接受干预控制病灶的患者 28 天死亡率较低(12.3% 对 22.5%;P本综述表明,在对急诊室就诊患者进行评估后实施病源控制可降低短期死亡率(30-60 天),而且最好尽快实施任何必要的病源控制干预,最好是在早期(6 小时内)实施。
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
0
期刊最新文献
Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with inadequate initial antibiotic treatment of bacteraemia produced by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CRGNB): a descriptive, observational study in Spanish hospitals. [Relevancia de los polimorfismos genéticos en la neurotoxicidad por voriconazol: caso clínico en paciente pediátrico]. Living with dogs and cats: Is it a risk factor for community acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections in humans? [Whooping cough outbreak in 2024. New distribution pattern in contagion? Should the booster doses in vaccination be reconsidered?] Epidemiology of the COVID-19 pneumonia in a group of hospitals from Madrid -Spain during the full period of the State of Alarm- HM cohort.
×
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