Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Akila Prashant
 -- 2381 2024-01-18 08:07:24 |
2 Format correct
Wendy Huang
 Meta information modification 2381 2024-01-18 12:40:14 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kumar, N.R.; Balraj, T.A.; Kempegowda, S.N.; Prashant, A. Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54012 (accessed on 04 May 2024).
Kumar NR, Balraj TA, Kempegowda SN, Prashant A. Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54012. Accessed May 04, 2024.
Kumar, Nishitha R., Tejashree A. Balraj, Swetha N. Kempegowda, Akila Prashant. "Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54012 (accessed May 04, 2024).
Kumar, N.R., Balraj, T.A., Kempegowda, S.N., & Prashant, A. (2024, January 18). Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54012
Kumar, Nishitha R., et al. "Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis." Encyclopedia. Web. 18 January, 2024.
Clinical Management of Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/antibiotics13010046

Sepsis is a critical medical condition associated with significant biological and chemical abnormalities that pose a high death rate. Unlike superficial and confined infections, sepsis is a complex disturbance of the delicate immunologic equilibrium between inflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses. This interaction demonstrates the fragile connection between the immune system and the clinical signs of sepsis. Sepsis globally accounts for an alarming annual toll of 48.9 million cases, resulting in 11 million deaths, and inflicts an economic burden of approximately USD 38 billion on the United States healthcare system. The rise of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) has elevated the urgency surrounding the management of multidrug-resistant (MDR) sepsis, evolving into a critical global health concern.

sepsis drug resistance microbial mortality antimicrobial organ dysfunction

1. Introduction

Sepsis is a critical medical condition associated with significant biological and chemical abnormalities that pose a high death rate. Unlike superficial and confined infections, sepsis is a complex disturbance of the delicate immunologic equilibrium between inflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses. This interaction demonstrates the fragile connection between the immune system and the clinical signs of sepsis. Over the past few decades, a comprehensive definition of “sepsis” has continuously evolved and improved [1]. Significantly, the current definition of sepsis (Sepsis-3) was proposed by the Third International Consensus, which defined it as “organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.”. This description is the first to stress the vital function played by the natural and acquired immune system response at the onset of a medical illness [2].
During the initial stages of sepsis, the immune system mediates the activation of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, pathogen-related molecules, and mediators, leading to the initiation of the complement cascade and coagulation [3]. For instance, numerous endogenous host-derived signals like damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) or exogenous stimulations like pathogen-derived molecular patterns (PAMPs), such as DNA fragments, lipids, exotoxins, and endotoxins, are the starting signals for sepsis. These molecules interact with toll-like receptors (TLRs) present on the surface of antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and monocytes, leading to the expression of genes associated with pro-inflammatory interleukins (IL, IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, and IL-18), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and interferons (IFNs like IFN-y) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) pathways and acquired immunity [4][5]; these processes are usually observed during the initial stages of sepsis [6][7][8]. This upregulated inflammation progresses to concomitant immunosuppression, leading to progressive tissue damage, multi-organ failure, increased immune cell apoptosis, and T cell exhaustion, which all together result in "immunoparalysis," thereby making sepsis patients prone to opportunistic and nosocomial infection [6][9]. A signal transduction caused by PAMPs- and DAMPs-mediated activation of monocytes and APCs causes the translocation of nuclear factor-kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κΒ) into the cell nuclei. However, in short, the overall impact of the dysregulated immune response, whether hyper- or hypo-responsiveness, on the individual’s immunological response is highly personalized, leading to significant challenges in diagnosis [1].
Sepsis is a worldwide public health concern characterized by high rates of morbidity and mortality and a significant financial burden [10][11]. For instance, Rudd and coworkers recently revealed the alarming worldwide estimations of sepsis, as 48.9 million cases of sepsis were reported in 2017, with 11 million deaths attributable to sepsis [11]. In 2011, sepsis substantially burdened healthcare facilities in the United States with USD 20 billion in annual costs [12]. Additionally, numerous indirect expenses might dramatically impact the quality of life of patients with sepsis. For instance, older patients with sepsis may experience long-term severe health issues, such as cognitive impairment and functional disability [13]. Furthermore, a study on the sepsis burden in the Indian intensive care unit (ICU) revealed that the elderly population is more prone to sepsis due to multiple comorbidities caused by compromised immunity. The study found that 132 out of 387 patients with sepsis had septic shock, with the lungs (45.5%) being the most common site of infection. The mortality rate was 60.7% and 78.9% in old and very old patients, compared to a 45.6% mortality rate observed in younger adults [14]. Similarly, another study identifying sepsis burden in Malaysian ICUs revealed that aging was significantly associated with a 30-day mortality rate among elderly sepsis patients (particularly patients aged ≥65 years), with a high 30-day mortality rate (28.9%) among elderly sepsis patients [15].
Like acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular stroke, sepsis is a critical and persistent chronological condition. In the case of sepsis, early and correct usage of antimicrobial drugs is of utmost significance within the first hour of detection, concurrently with organ support. If the microbial pathogen emerges as an MDR, including the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the therapeutic efficacy of currently available antimicrobial drugs is compromised, which hinders treatment success. Additionally, multidrug resistance poses a substantial risk of developing numerous sepsis-related adverse effects [16], necessitating prompt administration of the most appropriate antimicrobial therapy. However, while antibiotic resistance in bacteria is continuously growing globally, it poses a critical challenge to treating clinical infectious diseases, particularly those leading to life-threatening sepsis, septic shock, and multi-organ failure [17]. Additionally, as bacteria evolve, new mechanisms of resistance are emerging regularly and spreading worldwide, which are restricting current treatment options and making it challenging to treat prevalent infectious diseases [18]. Despite the persistent need for new antimicrobial drugs, major pharmaceutical industries have withdrawn from this field due to the rising costs of clinical trials, demanding approval criteria, and a general lack of economic viability [19][20]. This has widened the gap between the urgent public health need for effective antibiotics and the diminishing prospects of developing new antibacterial medications, resulting in a concerning situation [19].
Most patients with sepsis are given empirical antibiotic treatment without a prior confirmed diagnosis. This may raise the likelihood of developing multidrug resistance, accompanied by significant ecological adverse effects. Moreover, sepsis patients receive higher initial doses of empirical antimicrobial therapy regardless of organ failure, which may increase the synthesis of circulating pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediators, negatively impacting their overall health and well-being [21]. Additionally, the widespread misuse of antibiotics contributes significantly to increased mortality rates [22] and the surge in antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This misuse jeopardizes individual health and overburdens national healthcare systems financially [23]. One major contributor to antibiotic overuse is the unethical sale of antibiotics without proper prescriptions or diagnostic tests [24]. Similarly, self-medication practices often driven by economic constraints result in an incomplete antibiotic course, which promotes antibiotic resistance development due to suboptimal dosing [25]. Additionally, economic incentives for vendors to promote antibiotic sales make changing such practices challenging [26]. Furthermore, it is only now starting to understand the implications of antibiotic restrictions on outcomes and costs. It is hindered by the absence of universal ethical guidelines and comprehensive data on outcomes. Additionally, the concept of “best” and “effective” therapy varies significantly among groups, which makes the decision to select antibiotics difficult. Moreover, suboptimal antibiotic therapy cannot eradicate the infectious agent from the body, exposing affected individuals to the risk of adverse outcomes and wider antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, rational antibiotic usage primarily relies on identifying patients who, in fact, require treatment or optimizing treatment for a faster recovery [27].

2. Clinical Management of MDR Sepsis

Despite substantial advancements in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of sepsis, numerous clinical trials have been unsuccessful in identifying novel therapies that can alter the course of the disease [28][29]. Recognizing sepsis as a medical emergency is essential since, in the absence of definitive treatment, therapeutic interventions involve timely management of infection and organ support [30]. The 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SCC) guidelines strongly advise the prompt administration of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics, ideally within an hour following sepsis detection [31]. Several publications on sepsis and septic shock have found that delayed antibiotic administration is linked with adverse outcomes [32][33][34]. Beyond their apparent advantages, broad-spectrum antibiotics can cause substantial damage, such as antibiotic-associated adverse effects and potentially fatal AMR-related consequences [35][36]. Infections with MDRO have significantly increased worldwide, restricting the therapeutic options. The growing AMR is estimated to be responsible for approximately 10 million deaths each year by 2050. Therefore, treating patients with sepsis and septic shock by augmenting antimicrobial efficacy and avoiding the emergence of MDR strains is one of the primary concerns. Regarding this, antimicrobial stewardship (AS) is an important strategy for sepsis care since it focuses on multi-professional teamwork [for example, microbiologists, infectious disease specialists, and pharmacists] with appropriate, adequate, and optimized antimicrobial therapy [37].
Various studies have confirmed improved survival rates in sepsis patients with early and suitable antimicrobial administration and efficient source control [38], as validated by the inclusion of similar recommendations in 2016 SSC guidelines for early delivery of appropriate broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs within one hour of hospital admission in patients afflicted by sepsis and septic shock [31][39]. Moreover, administering empiric antibiotic therapy directed at the most likely pathogens involved in infectious sepsis is crucial to improving patient outcomes. Numerous published manuscripts have discussed the adverse impact and consequences of inadequate empiric therapy in sepsis patients [37][40][41][42][43][44]. Notably, prescribing ineffective empiric therapy is prevalent in ICUs, occurring in 10–40% of sepsis cases, which varies depending on the frequency of MDR pathogens [44][45]. Recent studies have found that the patient group with higher disease severity scores is most likely to benefit from appropriate antibiotic treatment. In contrast, ineffective empiric antimicrobial therapy was linked with a 5-fold decrease in the survival of over 5000 individuals suffering from septic shock [32]. Another prospective study has found a significantly increased mortality rate among patients with septic shock and an average of three organ dysfunctions [43]. An appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy means prescribing drugs that cover almost all potential pathogens responsible for the suspected infection. To achieve this, certain pathogen- and patient-related factors must be considered [37][46], including weight, age, allergies, comorbidities, chronic organ dysfunction, immunosuppressive therapy, and previous antibiotic or infection history. The risk of MDR pathogens should also be considered, including lengthy hospital stays, previous hospital admissions, the presence of invasive medical devices, and prior encounters with MDR pathogens [37]. Several investigations into the detrimental consequences and outcomes of delayed antimicrobial provision in patients with sepsis have concluded similar results [47][48][49]. These studies have confirmed that appropriate antibiotic therapy significantly decreased the mortality rate when it was given within ≤1 h [50], whereas each hour of delay in the treatment increased mortality [51] and dropped the overall survival rate by an average of 7.6% [52]. Besides delayed antibiotic administration, lengthy hospital stays [49][53], acute renal [54] and lung [55] diseases, and worsening organ dysfunction [56] have also been found to be common factors associated with increased mortality in sepsis patients.
Compared to these findings, various studies were unsuccessful in determining the usefulness of timely antimicrobial therapy [57][58][59]. A meta-analysis comprising over 16,000 individuals with sepsis and septic shock from 11 studies identified an insignificant difference between antibiotic administration (within 3 h) and mortality rate [60]. Another meta-analysis study comprising 11 studies on sepsis patients identified a 33% reduction in mortality among patients receiving early empiric antibiotic therapy (≤1 h) compared to those with delayed antibiotic administration (>1 h) [61]. A recent systematic review concluded that the mortality rate significantly decreased in patients with septic shock receiving early and adequate empiric antibiotic therapy [42]. Despite inconsistent outcomes, there is substantial agreement among international specialists on the need for prompt antimicrobial therapy in patients suffering from sepsis and septic shock, and novel ideas have recently been offered. A “door-to-needle” duration of 60 min has been advocated for antibiotic delivery, which indicates global concerns about launching a time window for successful therapy after sepsis detection [35]. Nonetheless, ensuring a competent application of institutional standards for antibiotic administration within 1 h after presentation remains difficult.
Given the rapidly growing prevalence of MDR infections, combined antibiotic therapy is commonly advised to warrant a larger antimicrobial spectrum and appropriate empiric coverage. The combined therapy is described as using antibiotics from two separate classes that have activity against a single infection, primarily to speed pathogen elimination and increase the susceptibility of pathogens to treatment [62]. To ensure the likelihood of having at least one active antibiotic against the possible pathogen involved, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) endorses using two active medicines against Gram-negative bacilli for empiric treatment of septic shock [63]. Recognizing the need to encourage antibiotic judiciousness, the IDSA formed a committee to explore suggestions for prudent antibiotic usage in treating sepsis. The experts accepted ten antibiotic class combinations out of a total of 21. Concerns about rising resistance and proper pathogen coverage were stated as factors for selecting such combinations. The use of any combination involving macrolides or ciprofloxacin and specific pairings of aztreonam with cephalosporins and aminoglycosides with intravenous clindamycin were prohibited [64].
Studies on combination therapy have yielded conflicting findings, and there is a scarcity of well-powered randomized controlled trials examining this particular issue. Numerous observational studies, however, demonstrated that combination therapy outperformed monotherapy in individuals suffering from sepsis and septic shock [65][66]. For instance, a meta-regression analysis found a link between combination therapy and a high survival rate among severely ill sepsis patients with a higher mortality risk. Unexpectedly, this meta-analysis identified higher mortality among the patient group with a low risk of death [67]. Similar findings were reported in other studies where researchers linked higher mortality with nephrotoxic side effects leading to renal failure [68]. Based on these inconsistent findings, some specialists advocate employing a pair of antibiotics for the initial treatment of patients with septic shock and suspected MDR pathogen infections. Even with negative culture results, treatment can be cut down to personalized therapy at the minimum acceptable time after microbiological isolation or a satisfactory clinical response [69]. To assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic combinations, well-powered randomized controlled trials examining multiple antibiotic combinations in different situations should be conducted [70]. Additionally, individualized therapies tailored to patients’ unique conditions, like diabetes, renal or hepatic failure, or immunosuppression, can yield favorable results instead of applying a uniform approach.
As organ dysfunction is a frequent complication of sepsis, supportive care and management of organ dysfunction are essential components of sepsis treatment to reduce complications and enhance patient outcomes. Hemodynamic support and mechanical ventilation are the two fundamental pillars of supportive care. Hemodynamic support entails maintaining proper tissue perfusion and oxygen supply, fluid resuscitation to restore blood pressure, and adequate organ perfusion. Vasopressor medications may also be required to treat refractory hypotension and to sustain cardiac output. Similar to this, sepsis patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome benefit from mechanical ventilation techniques such as low tidal volume ventilation and prone posture. Furthermore, renal and liver function should be constantly monitored to maintain optimal fluid and electrolyte balance and the fine balance of acids and bases. Some patients may need hemodialysis as a renal replacement therapy to prevent damage to other bodily organs caused by fluid imbalance and the presence of creatinine and urea in the blood, which hinder sepsis treatment [70][71][72].

References

  1. Jarczak, D.; Kluge, S.; Nierhaus, A. Sepsis-Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Concepts. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 628302.
  2. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810.
  3. Chousterman, B.G.; Swirski, F.K.; Weber, G.F. Cytokine Storm and Sepsis Disease Pathogenesis. Semin. Immunopathol. 2017, 39, 517–528.
  4. Rubio, I.; Osuchowski, M.F.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Skirecki, T.; Winkler, M.S.; Lachmann, G.; La Rosée, P.; Monneret, G.; Venet, F.; Bauer, M.; et al. Current Gaps in Sepsis Immunology: New Opportunities for Translational Research. Lancet. Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, e422–e436.
  5. Hotchkiss, R.S.; Moldawer, L.L.; Opal, S.M.; Reinhart, K.; Turnbull, I.R.; Vincent, J.L. Sepsis and Septic Shock. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2016, 2, 16045.
  6. Tamayo, E.; Fernández, A.; Almansa, R.; Carrasco, E.; Heredia, M.; Lajo, C.; Goncalves, L.; Gómez-Herreras, J.I.; de Lejarazu, R.O.; Bermejo-Martin, J.F. Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Responses Are Regulated Simultaneously from the First Moments of Septic Shock. Eur. Cytokine Netw. 2011, 22, 82–87.
  7. Andaluz-Ojeda, D.; Bobillo, F.; Iglesias, V.; Almansa, R.; Rico, L.; Gandía, F.; Resino, S.; Tamayo, E.; de Lejarazu, R.O.; Bermejo-Martin, J.F. A Combined Score of Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Interleukins Improves Mortality Prediction in Severe Sepsis. Cytokine 2012, 57, 332–336.
  8. Chaudhry, H.; Zhou, J.; Zhong, Y.; Ali, M.M.; McGuire, F.; Nagarkatti, P.S.; Nagarkatti, M. Role Of Cytokines As A Double-Edged Sword In Sepsis. In Vivo 2013, 27, 669–684.
  9. Tang, B.M.; Huang, S.J.; McLean, A.S. Genome-Wide Transcription Profiling of Human Sepsis: A Systematic Review. Crit. Care 2010, 14, R237.
  10. Reinhart, K.; Daniels, R.; Kissoon, N.; Machado, F.R.; Schachter, R.D.; Finfer, S. Recognizing Sepsis as a Global Health Priority—A WHO Resolution. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 414–417.
  11. Rudd, K.E.; Johnson, S.C.; Agesa, K.M.; Shackelford, K.A.; Tsoi, D.; Kievlan, D.R.; Colombara, D.V.; Ikuta, K.S.; Kissoon, N.; Finfer, S. Global, Regional, and National Sepsis Incidence and Mortality, 1990–2017: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. J. Lancet 2020, 395, 200–211.
  12. Torio, C.M.; Moore, B.J. National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville, MD, USA, 2016.
  13. Iwashyna, T.J.; Ely, E.W.; Smith, D.M.; Langa, K.M. Long-Term Cognitive Impairment and Functional Disability among Survivors of Severe Sepsis. JAMA 2010, 304, 1787–1794.
  14. Nasa, P.; Juneja, D.; Singh, O.; Dang, R.; Arora, V. Severe Sepsis and Its Impact on Outcome in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients Admitted in Intensive Care Unit. J. Intensive Care Med. 2012, 27, 179–183.
  15. Wan Muhd Shukeri, W.F.; Mat Nor, M.B.; Md Ralib, A. Sepsis and Its Impact on Outcomes in Elderly Patients Admitted to a Malaysian Intensive Care Unit. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS 2022, 29, 145–150.
  16. Plata-Menchaca, E.P.; Ferrer, R.; Ruiz Rodríguez, J.C.; Morais, R.; Póvoa, P. Antibiotic Treatment in Patients with Sepsis: A Narrative Review. Hosp. Pract. 2022, 50, 203–213.
  17. Zhu, Y.; Huang, W.E.; Yang, Q. Clinical Perspective of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2022, 15, 735–746.
  18. Ugwu, M.C.; Shariff, M.; Nnajide, C.M.; Beri, K.; Okezie, U.M.; Iroha, I.R.; Esimone, C.O. Phenotypic and Molecular Characterization of β-Lactamases among Enterobacterial Uropathogens in Southeastern Nigeria. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 5843904.
  19. Tacconelli, E.; Carrara, E.; Savoldi, A.; Harbarth, S.; Mendelson, M.; Monnet, D.L.; Pulcini, C.; Kahlmeter, G.; Kluytmans, J.; Carmeli, Y.; et al. Discovery, Research, and Development of New Antibiotics: The WHO Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Tuberculosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 318–327.
  20. Dutescu, I.A.; Hillier, S.A. Encouraging the Development of New Antibiotics: Are Financial Incentives the Right Way Forward? A Systematic Review and Case Study. Infect. Drug Resist. 2021, 14, 415–434.
  21. Saleem, N. Antibiotics Modulate Variable Immunological Responses in Sepsis—A Narrative Review. Preprints 2022, 2022100218.
  22. Efunshile, A.M.; Ezeanosike, O.; Nwangwu, C.C.; König, B.; Jokelainen, P.; Robertson, L.J. Apparent Overuse of Antibiotics in the Management of Watery Diarrhoea in Children in Abakaliki, Nigeria. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 275.
  23. Murray, C.J.L.; Ikuta, K.S.; Sharara, F.; Swetschinski, L.; Robles Aguilar, G.; Gray, A.; Han, C.; Bisignano, C.; Rao, P.; Wool, E.; et al. Global Burden of Bacterial Antimicrobial Resistance in 2019: A Systematic Analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655.
  24. Belachew, S.A.; Hall, L.; Selvey, L.A. Non-Prescription Dispensing of Antibiotic Agents among Community Drug Retail Outlets in Sub-Saharan African Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2021, 10, 13.
  25. Suy, S.; Rego, S.; Bory, S.; Chhorn, S.; Phou, S.; Prien, C.; Heng, S.; Wu, S.; Legido-Quigley, H.; Hanefeld, J.; et al. Invisible Medicine Sellers and Their Use of Antibiotics: A Qualitative Study in Cambodia. BMJ Glob. Health 2019, 4, e001787.
  26. Tangcharoensathien, V.; Chanvatik, S.; Sommanustweechai, A. Complex Determinants of Inappropriate Use of Antibiotics. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018, 96, 141–144.
  27. Garau, J. Impact of Antibiotic Restrictions: The Ethical Perspective. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2006, 12, 16–24.
  28. Sprung, C.L.; Annane, D.; Keh, D.; Moreno, R.; Singer, M.; Freivogel, K.; Weiss, Y.G.; Benbenishty, J.; Kalenka, A.; Forst, H.; et al. Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 111–124.
  29. Ranieri, V.M.; Thompson, B.T.; Barie, P.S.; Dhainaut, J.F.; Douglas, I.S.; Finfer, S.; Gårdlund, B.; Marshall, J.C.; Rhodes, A.; Artigas, A.; et al. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2055–2064.
  30. Plata-Menchaca, E.P.; Ferrer, R. Life-support tools for improving performance of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Hour-1 bundle. Med. Intensiv. 2018, 42, 547–550.
  31. Rhodes, A.; Evans, L.E.; Alhazzani, W.; Levy, M.M.; Antonelli, M.; Ferrer, R.; Kumar, A.; Sevransky, J.E.; Sprung, C.L.; Nunnally, M.E.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 304–377.
  32. Kumar, A.; Ellis, P.; Arabi, Y.; Roberts, D.; Light, B.; Parrillo, J.E.; Dodek, P.; Wood, G.; Kumar, A.; Simon, D.; et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest 2009, 136, 1237–1248.
  33. Ferrer, R.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Phillips, G.; Osborn, T.M.; Townsend, S.; Dellinger, R.P.; Artigas, A.; Schorr, C.; Levy, M.M. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: Results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 42, 1749–1755.
  34. Liu, V.X.; Fielding-Singh, V.; Greene, J.D.; Baker, J.M.; Iwashyna, T.J.; Bhattacharya, J.; Escobar, G.J. The Timing of Early Antibiotics and Hospital Mortality in Sepsis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 196, 856–863.
  35. Singer, M. Antibiotics for Sepsis: Does Each Hour Really Count, or Is It Incestuous Amplification? Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 196, 800–802.
  36. Mi, M.Y.; Klompas, M.; Evans, L. Early Administration of Antibiotics for Suspected Sepsis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 593–596.
  37. Ulldemolins, M.; Nuvials, X.; Palomar, M.; Masclans, J.R.; Rello, J. Appropriateness is critical. Crit. Care Clin. 2011, 27, 35–51.
  38. Levy, M.M.; Rhodes, A.; Phillips, G.S.; Townsend, S.R.; Schorr, C.A.; Beale, R.; Osborn, T.; Lemeshow, S.; Chiche, J.D.; Artigas, A.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 43, 3–12.
  39. Evans, L.; Rhodes, A.; Alhazzani, W.; Antonelli, M.; Coopersmith, C.M.; French, C.; Machado, F.R.; McIntyre, L.; Ostermann, M.; Prescott, H.C.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 1181–1247.
  40. Coz Yataco, A.; Jaehne, A.K.; Rivers, E.P. Protocolized Early Sepsis Care Is Not Only Helpful for Patients: It Prevents Medical Errors. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, 464–472.
  41. Garnacho-Montero, J.; Gutiérrez-Pizarraya, A.; Escoresca-Ortega, A.; Fernández-Delgado, E.; López-Sánchez, J.M. Adequate antibiotic therapy prior to ICU admission in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock reduces hospital mortality. Crit. Care 2015, 19, 302.
  42. Sherwin, R.; Winters, M.E.; Vilke, G.M.; Wardi, G. Does Early and Appropriate Antibiotic Administration Improve Mortality in Emergency Department Patients with Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock? J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 53, 588–595.
  43. Suberviola Cañas, B.; Jáuregui, R.; Ballesteros, M.; Leizaola, O.; González-Castro, A.; Castellanos-Ortega, Á. Effects of antibiotic administration delay and inadequacy upon the survival of septic shock patients. Med. Intensiv. 2015, 39, 459–466.
  44. Zilberberg, M.D.; Shorr, A.F.; Micek, S.T.; Vazquez-Guillamet, C.; Kollef, M.H. Multi-drug resistance, inappropriate initial antibiotic therapy and mortality in Gram-negative severe sepsis and septic shock: A retrospective cohort study. Crit. Care 2014, 18, 596.
  45. Ferrer, R.; Martínez, M.L.; Gomà, G.; Suárez, D.; Álvarez-Rocha, L.; de la Torre, M.V.; González, G.; Zaragoza, R.; Borges, M.; Blanco, J.; et al. Improved empirical antibiotic treatment of sepsis after an educational intervention: The ABISS-Edusepsis study. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 167.
  46. Green, R.S.; Gorman, S.K. Emergency department antimicrobial considerations in severe sepsis. Emerg. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 32, 835–849.
  47. Hamandi, B.; Holbrook, A.M.; Humar, A.; Brunton, J.; Papadimitropoulos, E.A.; Wong, G.G.; Thabane, L. Delay of adequate empiric antibiotic therapy is associated with increased mortality among solid-organ transplant patients. Am. J. Transplant. 2009, 9, 1657–1665.
  48. Garnacho-Montero, J.; García-Cabrera, E.; Diaz-Martín, A.; Lepe-Jiménez, J.A.; Iraurgi-Arcarazo, P.; Jiménez-Alvarez, R.; Revuelto-Rey, J.; Aznar-Martín, J. Determinants of outcome in patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia: Importance of early adequate treatment. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 42, 185–192.
  49. Harmankaya, M.; Oreskov, J.O.; Burcharth, J.; Gögenur, I. The impact of timing of antibiotics on in-hospital outcomes after major emergency abdominal surgery. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2020, 46, 221–227.
  50. Todi, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Bhattacharyya, M. Epidemiology of Severe Sepsis in India. Crit. Care 2007, 11, P65.
  51. Puskarich, M.A.; Trzeciak, S.; Shapiro, N.I.; Arnold, R.C.; Horton, J.M.; Studnek, J.R.; Kline, J.A.; Jones, A.E. Association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality from septic shock in patients treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 39, 2066–2071.
  52. Kumar, A.; Roberts, D.; Wood, K.E.; Light, B.; Parrillo, J.E.; Sharma, S.; Suppes, R.; Feinstein, D.; Zanotti, S.; Taiberg, L.; et al. Duration of Hypotension before Initiation of Effective Antimicrobial Therapy Is the Critical Determinant of Survival in Human Septic Shock. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 1589–1596.
  53. Zhang, D.; Micek, S.T.; Kollef, M.H. Time to Appropriate Antibiotic Therapy Is an Independent Determinant of Postinfection ICU and Hospital Lengths of Stay in Patients With Sepsis. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 43, 2133–2140.
  54. Bagshaw, S.M.; Lapinsky, S.; Dial, S.; Arabi, Y.; Dodek, P.; Wood, G.; Ellis, P.; Guzman, J.; Marshall, J.; Parrillo, J.E.; et al. Acute kidney injury in septic shock: Clinical outcomes and impact of duration of hypotension prior to initiation of antimicrobial therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 871–881.
  55. Iscimen, R.; Cartin-Ceba, R.; Yilmaz, M.; Khan, H.; Hubmayr, R.D.; Afessa, B.; Gajic, O. Risk factors for the development of acute lung injury in patients with septic shock: An observational cohort study. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 36, 1518–1522.
  56. Hwang, S.Y.; Shin, J.; Jo, I.J.; Park, J.E.; Yoon, H.; Cha, W.C.; Sim, M.S.; Shin, T.G. Delayed Antibiotic Therapy and Organ Dysfunction in Critically Ill Septic Patients in the Emergency Department. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 222.
  57. Labelle, A.; Juang, P.; Reichley, R.; Micek, S.; Hoffmann, J.; Hoban, A.; Hampton, N.; Kollef, M. The determinants of hospital mortality among patients with septic shock receiving appropriate initial antibiotic treatment. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 40, 2016–2021.
  58. van Paridon, B.M.; Sheppard, C.; Joffe, A.R.; Alberta Sepsis Network. Timing of antibiotics, volume, and vasoactive infusions in children with sepsis admitted to intensive care. Crit. Care 2015, 19, 293.
  59. Alam, N.; Oskam, E.; Stassen, P.M.; Exter, P.V.; van de Ven, P.M.; Haak, H.R.; Holleman, F.; Zanten, A.V.; Leeuwen-Nguyen, H.V.; Bon, V.; et al. Prehospital antibiotics in the ambulance for sepsis: A multicentre, open label, randomised trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 2018, 6, 40–50.
  60. Sterling, S.A.; Miller, W.R.; Pryor, J.; Puskarich, M.A.; Jones, A.E. The Impact of Timing of Antibiotics on Outcomes in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 43, 1907–1915.
  61. Johnston, A.N.B.; Park, J.; Doi, S.A.; Sharman, V.; Clark, J.; Robinson, J.; Crilly, J. Effect of Immediate Administration of Antibiotics in Patients With Sepsis in Tertiary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Ther. 2017, 39, 190–202.e196.
  62. Vincent, J.L.; Bassetti, M.; François, B.; Karam, G.; Chastre, J.; Torres, A.; Roberts, J.A.; Taccone, F.S.; Rello, J.; Calandra, T.; et al. Advances in antibiotic therapy in the critically ill. Crit. Care 2016, 20, 133.
  63. Force, I.S.T. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) POSITION STATEMENT: Why IDSA Did Not Endorse the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 66, 1631–1635.
  64. Septimus, E.J.; Coopersmith, C.M.; Whittle, J.; Hale, C.P.; Fishman, N.O.; Kim, T.J. Sepsis National Hospital Inpatient Quality Measure (SEP-1): Multistakeholder Work Group Recommendations for Appropriate Antibiotics for the Treatment of Sepsis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 1565–1569.
  65. Delannoy, P.Y.; Boussekey, N.; Devos, P.; Alfandari, S.; Turbelin, C.; Chiche, A.; Meybeck, A.; Georges, H.; Leroy, O. Impact of combination therapy with aminoglycosides on the outcome of ICU-acquired bacteraemias. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 31, 2293–2299.
  66. Micek, S.T.; Welch, E.C.; Khan, J.; Pervez, M.; Doherty, J.A.; Reichley, R.M.; Kollef, M.H. Empiric combination antibiotic therapy is associated with improved outcome against sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria: A retrospective analysis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 1742–1748.
  67. Kumar, A.; Safdar, N.; Kethireddy, S.; Chateau, D. A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: A meta-analytic/meta-regression study. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 38, 1651–1664.
  68. Ong, D.S.Y.; Frencken, J.F.; Klein Klouwenberg, P.M.C.; Juffermans, N.; van der Poll, T.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Cremer, O.L. Short-Course Adjunctive Gentamicin as Empirical Therapy in Patients With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, 1731–1736.
  69. Klompas, M. Monotherapy Is Adequate for Septic Shock Due to Gram-Negative Organisms. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, 1930–1932.
  70. Coopersmith, C.M.; De Backer, D.; Deutschman, C.S.; Ferrer, R.; Lat, I.; Machado, F.R.; Martin, G.S.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Nunnally, M.E.; Antonelli, M.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, 1334–1356.
  71. Bellomo, R.; Kellum, J.A.; Ronco, C.; Wald, R.; Martensson, J.; Maiden, M.; Bagshaw, S.M.; Glassford, N.J.; Lankadeva, Y.; Vaara, S.T.; et al. Acute kidney injury in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 816–828.
  72. Pearce, A.K.; McGuire, W.C.; Malhotra, A. Prone Positioning in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. NEJM Evid. 2022, 1, EVIDra2100046.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Health Policy & Services
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Nishitha R. Kumar
,
Tejashree A. Balraj
,
Swetha N. Kempegowda
,
Akila Prashant
View Times: 126
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback