培养阴性脓毒症与培养阳性脓毒症可能是不同的实体:一项前瞻性全国多中心队列研究

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1186/s13054-024-05151-3
Youjin Chang, Ju Hyun Oh, Dong Kyu Oh, Su Yeon Lee, Dong-gon Hyun, Mi Hyeon Park, Chae-Man Lim
{"title":"培养阴性脓毒症与培养阳性脓毒症可能是不同的实体:一项前瞻性全国多中心队列研究","authors":"Youjin Chang, Ju Hyun Oh, Dong Kyu Oh, Su Yeon Lee, Dong-gon Hyun, Mi Hyeon Park, Chae-Man Lim","doi":"10.1186/s13054-024-05151-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The distinction between culture-positive sepsis and culture-negative sepsis regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes remains contentious. We aimed to elucidate these differences using large-scale nationwide data. This prospective cohort study analyzed data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance registry, comprising 21 intensive care units (ICUs) across 20 hospitals from September 2019 to December 2021. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria were included. Among 11,981 sepsis patients, 3501 were analyzed, all of whom were referred to the ICU through the emergency department (mean age: 72 ± 13 years; 1976 [56%] males). Of these, 2213 (63%) were culture-positive sepsis and 1288 (37%) were culture-negative sepsis. Compared to the culture-positive sepsis group, the culture-negative sepsis group exhibited less severe illness, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less deteriorated vital signs. While pulmonary-origin sepsis was common in both groups, culture-negative patients primarily presented with pulmonary infections and had a higher incidence of respiratory failure. In comparison to the culture-positive sepsis group, blood cultures and the administration of empirical antibiotics were performed less promptly in the culture-negative sepsis group. Patients with culture-negative sepsis also showed lower compliance with fluid resuscitation (98.4% vs. 96.9%, p = 0.038; culture-positive sepsis vs. culture-negative sepsis) and received vasopressors earlier (31.1% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.012). In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (31.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.073); however, in patients with septic shock, culture-negative sepsis had higher mortality rates (37.6% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.029). The apparent appropriateness of empirical antibiotics in the culture-negative septic shock was higher than that of the culture-positive septic shock (85.2% vs. 96.8%, p < 0.001). Culture-negativity independently predicted poor prognosis in septic shock patients (OR: 1.462, 95% CI [1.060–2.017], p = 0.021). In patients with septic shock, culture-negativity was associated with increased mortality, despite the paradoxically higher appropriateness of empirical antibiotics than culture-positive patients. These contradictory findings suggest that the current criteria for determining the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy may not be valid for culture-negative sepsis.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"256 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Culture-negative sepsis may be a different entity from culture-positive sepsis: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Youjin Chang, Ju Hyun Oh, Dong Kyu Oh, Su Yeon Lee, Dong-gon Hyun, Mi Hyeon Park, Chae-Man Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13054-024-05151-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The distinction between culture-positive sepsis and culture-negative sepsis regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes remains contentious. We aimed to elucidate these differences using large-scale nationwide data. This prospective cohort study analyzed data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance registry, comprising 21 intensive care units (ICUs) across 20 hospitals from September 2019 to December 2021. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria were included. Among 11,981 sepsis patients, 3501 were analyzed, all of whom were referred to the ICU through the emergency department (mean age: 72 ± 13 years; 1976 [56%] males). Of these, 2213 (63%) were culture-positive sepsis and 1288 (37%) were culture-negative sepsis. Compared to the culture-positive sepsis group, the culture-negative sepsis group exhibited less severe illness, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less deteriorated vital signs. While pulmonary-origin sepsis was common in both groups, culture-negative patients primarily presented with pulmonary infections and had a higher incidence of respiratory failure. In comparison to the culture-positive sepsis group, blood cultures and the administration of empirical antibiotics were performed less promptly in the culture-negative sepsis group. Patients with culture-negative sepsis also showed lower compliance with fluid resuscitation (98.4% vs. 96.9%, p = 0.038; culture-positive sepsis vs. culture-negative sepsis) and received vasopressors earlier (31.1% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.012). In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (31.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.073); however, in patients with septic shock, culture-negative sepsis had higher mortality rates (37.6% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.029). The apparent appropriateness of empirical antibiotics in the culture-negative septic shock was higher than that of the culture-positive septic shock (85.2% vs. 96.8%, p < 0.001). Culture-negativity independently predicted poor prognosis in septic shock patients (OR: 1.462, 95% CI [1.060–2.017], p = 0.021). In patients with septic shock, culture-negativity was associated with increased mortality, despite the paradoxically higher appropriateness of empirical antibiotics than culture-positive patients. These contradictory findings suggest that the current criteria for determining the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy may not be valid for culture-negative sepsis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"256 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05151-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05151-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

培养阳性脓毒症和培养阴性脓毒症在临床特征和预后方面的区别仍存在争议。我们旨在利用全国范围内的大规模数据来阐明这些差异。这项前瞻性队列研究分析了韩国脓毒症联盟(Korean Sepsis Alliance)登记处的数据,该登记处由 20 家医院的 21 个重症监护病房(ICU)组成,时间跨度为 2019 年 9 月至 2021 年 12 月。研究纳入了符合败血症-3标准的患者。在 11981 名败血症患者中,有 3501 人接受了分析,他们都是通过急诊科转入重症监护室的(平均年龄:72 ± 13 岁;1976 [56%] 名男性)。其中,2213 例(63%)为培养阳性败血症,1288 例(37%)为培养阴性败血症。与培养阳性脓毒症组相比,培养阴性脓毒症组的病情较轻,序贯器官衰竭评估评分较低,生命体征恶化程度较轻。虽然肺源性败血症在两组患者中都很常见,但培养阴性患者主要表现为肺部感染,呼吸衰竭发生率较高。与培养阳性脓毒症组相比,培养阴性脓毒症组的血液培养和经验性抗生素用药更不及时。培养阴性脓毒症患者对液体复苏的依从性也较低(98.4% 对 96.9%,p = 0.038;培养阳性脓毒症对培养阴性脓毒症),并且较早使用血管加压药(31.1% 对 35.9%,p = 0.012)。两组患者的院内死亡率无明显差异(31.6% vs. 34.9%,p = 0.073);但在脓毒性休克患者中,培养阴性脓毒症患者的死亡率更高(37.6% vs. 45.1%,p = 0.029)。培养阴性脓毒性休克患者使用经验性抗生素的明显适宜性高于培养阳性脓毒性休克患者(85.2% 对 96.8%,P < 0.001)。培养阴性可独立预测脓毒性休克患者的不良预后(OR:1.462,95% CI [1.060-2.017],P = 0.021)。在脓毒性休克患者中,尽管经验性抗生素的适宜性高于培养阳性患者,但培养阴性与死亡率升高有关。这些相互矛盾的研究结果表明,目前判断经验性抗生素治疗是否合适的标准可能不适用于培养阴性的脓毒症患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Culture-negative sepsis may be a different entity from culture-positive sepsis: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study
The distinction between culture-positive sepsis and culture-negative sepsis regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes remains contentious. We aimed to elucidate these differences using large-scale nationwide data. This prospective cohort study analyzed data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance registry, comprising 21 intensive care units (ICUs) across 20 hospitals from September 2019 to December 2021. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria were included. Among 11,981 sepsis patients, 3501 were analyzed, all of whom were referred to the ICU through the emergency department (mean age: 72 ± 13 years; 1976 [56%] males). Of these, 2213 (63%) were culture-positive sepsis and 1288 (37%) were culture-negative sepsis. Compared to the culture-positive sepsis group, the culture-negative sepsis group exhibited less severe illness, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less deteriorated vital signs. While pulmonary-origin sepsis was common in both groups, culture-negative patients primarily presented with pulmonary infections and had a higher incidence of respiratory failure. In comparison to the culture-positive sepsis group, blood cultures and the administration of empirical antibiotics were performed less promptly in the culture-negative sepsis group. Patients with culture-negative sepsis also showed lower compliance with fluid resuscitation (98.4% vs. 96.9%, p = 0.038; culture-positive sepsis vs. culture-negative sepsis) and received vasopressors earlier (31.1% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.012). In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (31.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.073); however, in patients with septic shock, culture-negative sepsis had higher mortality rates (37.6% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.029). The apparent appropriateness of empirical antibiotics in the culture-negative septic shock was higher than that of the culture-positive septic shock (85.2% vs. 96.8%, p < 0.001). Culture-negativity independently predicted poor prognosis in septic shock patients (OR: 1.462, 95% CI [1.060–2.017], p = 0.021). In patients with septic shock, culture-negativity was associated with increased mortality, despite the paradoxically higher appropriateness of empirical antibiotics than culture-positive patients. These contradictory findings suggest that the current criteria for determining the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy may not be valid for culture-negative sepsis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
期刊最新文献
Mortality in septic patients treated with short-acting betablockers: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Weaning of non COPD patients at high-risk of extubation failure assessed by lung ultrasound: the WIN IN WEAN multicentre randomised controlled trial The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone-system in sepsis and its clinical modulation with exogenous angiotensin II Time-dependent intervention in the database study examining the efficacy of whole blood transfusion in traumatic patients Cost-effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care
×
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