Department of Intensive Care Unit, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, Jilin, China.
Crit Care. 2021 May 8;25(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03592-8.
Mortality and other clinical outcomes between culture-negative and culture-positive septic patients have been documented inconsistently and are very controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive sepsis or septic shock.
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for studies from inception to the 1st of January 2021. We included studies involving patients with sepsis or septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of all-cause mortality and clearly compared culture-negative versus culture-positive patients with clinically relevant secondary outcomes (ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, mechanical ventilation requirements, mechanical ventilation duration and renal replacement requirements). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).
Seven studies including 22,655 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the all-cause mortality between two groups (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.01; P = 0.12; Chi- = 30.71; I = 80%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay (MD = - 0.19;95% CI, - 0.42 to 0.04; P = 0.10;Chi- = 5.73; I = 48%), mechanical ventilation requirements (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.61; Chi = 6.32; I = 53%) and renal replacement requirements (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P = 0.06; Chi- = 1.21; I = 0%) between two groups. The hospital length of stay of culture-positive group was longer than that of the culture-negative group (MD = - 3.48;95% CI, - 4.34 to - 2.63; P < 0.00001;Chi- = 1.03; I = 0%). The mechanical ventilation duration of culture-positive group was longer than that of the culture-negative group (MD = - 0.64;95% CI, - 0.88 to - 0.4; P < 0.00001;Chi- = 4.86; I = 38%).
Culture positivity or negativity was not associated with mortality of sepsis or septic shock patients. Furthermore, culture-positive septic patients had similar ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation requirements and renal replacement requirements as those culture-negative patients. The hospital length of stay and mechanical ventilation duration of culture-positive septic patients were both longer than that of the culture-negative patients. Further large-scale studies are still required to confirm these results.
在培养阴性和培养阳性脓毒症患者之间,死亡率和其他临床结局的报道不一致,存在很大争议。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较培养阴性和培养阳性脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的临床结局。
我们检索了从开始到 2021 年 1 月 1 日的 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Embase 数据库,纳入了涉及脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的研究。所有作者均报告了我们的主要结局——全因死亡率,并明确比较了培养阴性与培养阳性患者的临床相关次要结局(ICU 住院时间、医院住院时间、机械通气需求、机械通气时间和肾脏替代治疗需求)。结果表示为比值比(OR)和均数差(MD),并附有 95%置信区间(CI)。
纳入了 7 项研究,共计 22655 名患者。本荟萃分析的主要结局显示,两组间的全因死亡率无统计学差异(OR=0.95;95%CI,0.88 至 1.01;P=0.12;Chi-=30.71;I=80%)。次要结局表明,两组间 ICU 住院时间(MD=-0.19;95%CI,-0.42 至 0.04;P=0.10;Chi-=5.73;I=48%)、机械通气需求(OR=1.02;95%CI,0.94 至 1.11;P=0.61;Chi=6.32;I=53%)和肾脏替代治疗需求(OR=0.82;95%CI,0.67 至 1.01;P=0.06;Chi-=1.21;I=0%)均无统计学差异。培养阳性组的住院时间长于培养阴性组(MD=-3.48;95%CI,-4.34 至 -2.63;P<0.00001;Chi-=1.03;I=0%)。培养阳性组的机械通气时间长于培养阴性组(MD=-0.64;95%CI,-0.88 至 -0.4;P<0.00001;Chi-=4.86;I=38%)。
培养阳性或阴性与脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的死亡率无关。此外,培养阳性的脓毒症患者的 ICU 住院时间、机械通气需求和肾脏替代治疗需求与培养阴性患者相似。培养阳性脓毒症患者的住院时间和机械通气时间均长于培养阴性患者。仍需要进一步的大规模研究来证实这些结果。