Unit of Infectious Diseases, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Nov;54(11):4851-63. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00627-10. Epub 2010 Aug 23.
Quantifying the benefit of early antibiotic treatment is crucial for decision making and can be assessed only in observational studies. We performed a systematic review of prospective studies reporting the effect of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment on all-cause mortality among adult inpatients with sepsis. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals for each study and extracted adjusted ORs, with variance, methods, and covariates being used for adjustment. ORs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We examined the effects of methodological and clinical confounders on results through subgroup analysis or mixed-effect meta-regression. Seventy studies were included, of which 48 provided an adjusted OR for inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment. Inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment was associated with significantly higher mortality in the unadjusted and adjusted comparisons, with considerable heterogeneity occurring in both analyses (I(2) > 70%). Study design, time of mortality assessment, the reporting methods of the multivariable models, and the covariates used for adjustment were significantly associated with effect size. Septic shock was the only clinical variable significantly affecting results (it was associated with higher ORs). Studies adjusting for background conditions and sepsis severity reported a pooled adjusted OR of 1.60 (95% confidence interval = 1.37 to 1.86; 26 studies; number needed to treat to prevent one fatal outcome, 10 patients [95% confidence interval = 8 to 15]; I(2) = 46.3%) given 34% mortality with inappropriate empirical treatment. Appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. However, the methods used in the observational studies significantly affect the effect size reported. Methods of observational studies assessing the effects of antibiotic treatment should be improved and standardized.
量化早期抗生素治疗的益处对于决策至关重要,只能通过观察性研究来评估。我们对报告适当经验性抗生素治疗对脓毒症成年住院患者全因死亡率影响的前瞻性研究进行了系统评价。两位审查员独立提取数据。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估偏倚风险。我们为每项研究计算了未经调整的优势比(OR)和 95%置信区间,并提取了调整后的 OR,使用方差、方法和协变量进行调整。使用随机效应荟萃分析对 OR 进行汇总。我们通过亚组分析或混合效应荟萃回归检查方法学和临床混杂因素对结果的影响。共纳入 70 项研究,其中 48 项提供了不适当经验性抗生素治疗的调整后 OR。未经调整和调整后的比较均显示不适当经验性抗生素治疗与死亡率显著升高相关,两种分析均存在较大异质性(I(2)>70%)。研究设计、死亡率评估时间、多变量模型的报告方法以及用于调整的协变量与效应大小显著相关。脓毒性休克是唯一显著影响结果的临床变量(与更高的 OR 相关)。调整背景条件和脓毒症严重程度的研究报告的调整后合并 OR 为 1.60(95%置信区间 1.37 至 1.86;26 项研究;预防一例死亡结局所需的治疗人数,10 例[95%置信区间 8 至 15];I(2)=46.3%),不适当经验性治疗的死亡率为 34%。适当的经验性抗生素治疗与全因死亡率的显著降低相关。然而,观察性研究中使用的方法显著影响报告的效应大小。评估抗生素治疗效果的观察性研究方法应得到改进和标准化。