Kopczynska Maja, Sharif Ben, Unwin Harry, Lynch John, Forrester Andrew, Zeicu Claudia, Cleaver Sian, Kulikouskaya Svetlana, Chandy Tom, Ang Eshen, Murphy Emily, Asim Umair, Payne Bethany, Nicholas Jessica, Waller Alessia, Owen Aimee, Tan Zhao Xuan, Ross Robert, Wellington Jack, Amjad Yahya, Unadkat Vidhi, Hussain Faris, Smith Jessica, Ganesananthan Sashiananthan, Penney Harriet, Inns Joy, Gilbert Carys, Doyle Nicholas, Kurani Amit, Grother Thomas, McNulty Paul, Sharma Angelica, Szakmany Tamas
Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park Campus, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
Anaesthetic Directorate, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Cardiff Road, Newport, Gwent NP20 2UB, UK.
J Clin Med. 2019 Aug 29;8(9):1337. doi: 10.3390/jcm8091337.
Recent description of the microbiology of sepsis on the wards or information on the real-life antibiotic choices used in sepsis is lacking. There is growing concern of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and omission of microbiological investigations in the management of septic patients. We performed a secondary analysis of three annual 24-h point-prevalence studies on the general wards across all Welsh acute hospitals in years 2016-2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, as well as radiological, laboratory and microbiological data within 48-h of the study. We screened 19,453 patients over the three 24 h study periods and recruited 1252 patients who fulfilled the entry criteria. 775 (64.9%) patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics. Only in 33.65% (421/1252) of all recruited patients did healthcare providers obtain blood cultures; in 25.64% (321/1252) urine cultures; in 8.63% (108/1252) sputum cultures; in 6.79% (85/1252) wound cultures; in 15.25% (191/1252) other cultures. Out of the recruited patients, 59.1% (740/1252) fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. Patients with SEPSIS-3 criteria were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics than the non-septic cohort ( < 0.0001). In a multivariable regression analysis increase in SOFA score, increased number of SIRS criteria and the use of the official sepsis screening tool were associated with antibiotic administration, however obtaining microbiology cultures was not. Our study shows that antibiotics prescription practice is not accompanied by microbiological investigations. A significant proportion of sepsis patients are still at risk of not receiving appropriate antibiotics treatment and microbiological investigations; this may be improved by a more thorough implementation of sepsis screening tools.
目前尚缺乏有关病房败血症微生物学的最新描述,也没有关于败血症实际使用抗生素选择的信息。人们越来越担心在败血症患者的管理中存在抗生素的滥用以及微生物学检查的遗漏。我们对2016 - 2018年威尔士所有急性医院普通病房进行的三项年度24小时时点患病率研究进行了二次分析。收集了患者的人口统计学数据,以及研究48小时内的放射学、实验室和微生物学数据。在三个24小时研究期间,我们筛查了19453名患者,招募了1252名符合入选标准的患者。775名(64.9%)患者接受了静脉抗生素治疗。在所有招募的患者中,只有33.65%(421/1252)的医护人员进行了血培养;25.64%(321/1252)进行了尿培养;8.63%(108/1252)进行了痰培养;6.79%(85/1252)进行了伤口培养;15.25%(191/1252)进行了其他培养。在招募的患者中,59.1%(740/1252)符合SEPSIS-3标准。符合SEPSIS-3标准的患者比非败血症队列更有可能接受抗生素治疗(<0.0001)。在多变量回归分析中,序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分增加、全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准数量增加以及使用官方败血症筛查工具与抗生素使用相关,但进行微生物学培养与抗生素使用无关。我们的研究表明,抗生素处方实践并未伴随着微生物学检查。相当一部分败血症患者仍有未接受适当抗生素治疗和微生物学检查的风险;通过更全面地实施败血症筛查工具可能会有所改善。