Mikkelsen Vibe S, Gregers Mads Christian Tofte, Justesen Ulrik Stenz, Schierbeck Jens, Mikkelsen Søren
Mobile Emergency Care Unit in Odense, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense, Denmark.
OPEN Open Patient Data Explorative Network, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Apr;65(4):540-548. doi: 10.1111/aas.13777. Epub 2021 Jan 16.
Rapid recognition and antibiotic treatment, preferably preceded by blood cultures (BCs), is a mainstay in sepsis therapy. The objective of this investigation was to determine if pre-hospital BCs were feasible and drawn with an acceptably low level of contamination and to investigate whether pre-hospital antibiotics were administered on correct indications.
We performed a register-based study in a pre-hospital physician-manned mobile emergency care unit (MECU) operating in a mixed urban/rural area in Denmark. All patients who received pre-hospital antibiotics by the MECU from November 2013 to October 2018 were reviewed. Outcome measures were characterisation of microbial findings and subsequent in-hospital confirmation of the pre-hospital indication for antibiotics.
One-hundred-and-nineteen patients received antibiotics pre-hospitally. Six were excluded. One-hundred-and-thirteen patients were included in the study. BCs were drawn in 107 of the 113 patients (94.7% [88.8%-98.0%]). We found a true pathogen of sepsis in 29 (27.1% [19.0%-36.6%]) of these 107 patients. Nine (8.4% [3.9%-15.4%]) patients had contaminated pre-hospital BCs. Forty-nine of all patients (36.3% [27.4%-45.9%]) had causative pathogens in either their BCs or other samples confirming the pre-hospital tentative diagnosis. Eighty-two (72.6% [63.4%-80.5%]) patients received antibiotic therapy in-hospitally, while 27 (23.9% [16.4%-32.8%]) were assigned an in-hospital diagnosis not associated with infection. Four (3.5% [1.0%-8.8%]) patients died in hospital before a diagnosis was established.
Pre-hospital administration of antibiotics preceded by BCs is feasible, although with somewhat high blood culture contamination rates. Antibiotics are administered on reasonable indications.
快速识别并进行抗生素治疗(最好在血培养之后)是脓毒症治疗的主要手段。本研究的目的是确定院前血培养是否可行,以及污染水平是否可接受,并调查院前抗生素的使用指征是否正确。
我们在丹麦城乡结合部一个由院前医生配备的移动急救单元(MECU)进行了一项基于登记的研究。回顾了2013年11月至2018年10月期间由MECU进行院前抗生素治疗的所有患者。观察指标为微生物检测结果的特征以及随后院内对院前抗生素使用指征的确认。
119例患者接受了院前抗生素治疗。6例被排除。113例患者纳入研究。113例患者中有107例(94.7%[88.8%-98.0%])进行了血培养。在这107例患者中,我们发现29例(27.1%[19.0%-36.6%])存在脓毒症的真正病原体。9例(8.4%[3.9%-15.4%])患者的院前血培养受到污染。所有患者中有49例(36.3%[27.4%-45.9%])在血培养或其他样本中发现致病病原体,证实了院前初步诊断。82例(72.6%[63.4%-80.5%])患者在院内接受了抗生素治疗,而27例(23.9%[16.4%-32.8%])被诊断为与感染无关的疾病。4例(3.5%[1.0%-8.8%])患者在确诊前死于医院。
在进行血培养后进行院前抗生素给药是可行的,尽管血培养污染率略高。抗生素的使用指征合理。