Shravan Kethireddy1,2, Beliz Bilgili3, Amanda Sees4, H Lester Kirchner4, Uchenna R Ofoma1, R Bruce Light5, Yazdan Mirzanejad6, Dennis Maki7, Aseem Kumar8, A Joseph Layon1, Joseph E Parrillo9, Anand Kumar5. 1. The Departments of Critical Care Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. 2. Section of Infectious Diseases, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. 3. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. 5. Sections of Critical Care and Infectious Diseases, Departments of Medicine and Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 6. Section of Infectious Diseases, Surrey Memorial Hospital, Surrey, BC, Canada. 7. Sections of Infectious Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI. 8. Biomolecular Sciences Program, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada. 9. Sections of Cardiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative septic shock in comparison with culture-positive septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective nested cohort study. SETTING: ICUs of 28 academic and community hospitals in three countries between 1997 and 2010. SUBJECTS: Patients with culture-negative septic shock and culture-positive septic shock derived from a trinational (n = 8,670) database of patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients with culture-negative septic shock (n = 2,651; 30.6%) and culture-positive septic shock (n = 6,019; 69.4%) were identified. Culture-negative septic shock compared with culture-positive septic shock patients experienced similar ICU survival (58.3% vs 59.5%; p = 0.276) and overall hospital survival (47.3% vs 47.1%; p = 0.976). Severity of illness was similar between culture-negative septic shock and culture-positive septic shock groups ([mean and SD Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 25.7 ± 8.3 vs 25.7 ± 8.1]; p = 0.723) as were serum lactate levels (3.0 [interquartile range, 1.7-6.1] vs 3.2 mmol/L [interquartile range, 1.8-5.9 mmol/L]; p = 0.366). As delays in the administration of appropriate antimicrobial therapy after the onset of hypotension increased, patients in both groups experienced congruent increases in overall hospital mortality: culture-negative septic shock (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI [1.47-1.66]; p < 0.0001) and culture-positive septic shock (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI [1.59-1.71]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with culture-negative septic shock behave similarly to those with culture-positive septic shock in nearly all respects; early appropriate antimicrobial therapy appears to improve mortality. Early recognition and eradication of infection is the most obvious effective strategy to improve hospital survival.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative septic shock in comparison with culture-positive septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective nested cohort study. SETTING: ICUs of 28 academic and community hospitals in three countries between 1997 and 2010. SUBJECTS:Patients with culture-negative septic shock and culture-positive septic shock derived from a trinational (n = 8,670) database of patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients with culture-negative septic shock (n = 2,651; 30.6%) and culture-positive septic shock (n = 6,019; 69.4%) were identified. Culture-negative septic shock compared with culture-positive septic shockpatients experienced similar ICU survival (58.3% vs 59.5%; p = 0.276) and overall hospital survival (47.3% vs 47.1%; p = 0.976). Severity of illness was similar between culture-negative septic shock and culture-positive septic shock groups ([mean and SD Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 25.7 ± 8.3 vs 25.7 ± 8.1]; p = 0.723) as were serum lactate levels (3.0 [interquartile range, 1.7-6.1] vs 3.2 mmol/L [interquartile range, 1.8-5.9 mmol/L]; p = 0.366). As delays in the administration of appropriate antimicrobial therapy after the onset of hypotension increased, patients in both groups experienced congruent increases in overall hospital mortality: culture-negative septic shock (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI [1.47-1.66]; p < 0.0001) and culture-positive septic shock (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI [1.59-1.71]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with culture-negative septic shock behave similarly to those with culture-positive septic shock in nearly all respects; early appropriate antimicrobial therapy appears to improve mortality. Early recognition and eradication of infection is the most obvious effective strategy to improve hospital survival.
Authors: Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Jean-François Timsit; Marin H Kollef; Richard G Wunderink; Nobuaki Shime; Martin Nováček; Ülo Kivistik; Álvaro Réa-Neto; Christopher J Bruno; Jennifer A Huntington; Gina Lin; Erin H Jensen; Mary Motyl; Brian Yu; Davis Gates; Joan R Butterton; Elizabeth G Rhee Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Ed Moran; Esther Robinson; Christopher Green; Matt Keeling; Benjamin Collyer Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Alicia M Alcamo; Mira K Trivedi; Carly Dulabon; Christopher M Horvat; Geoffrey J Bond; Joseph A Carcillo; Michael Green; Marian G Michaels; Rajesh K Aneja Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Luzelena Caro; David P Nicolau; Jan J De Waele; Joseph L Kuti; Kajal B Larson; Elaine Gadzicki; Brian Yu; Zhen Zeng; Adedayo Adedoyin; Elizabeth G Rhee Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.790