School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS.
Division of Medical Informatics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS.
Chest. 2022 Jan;161(1):112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.029. Epub 2021 Jun 26.
Recent medical society opinions have questioned the use of early antimicrobials in patients with sepsis, but without septic shock.
Is time from ED presentation to administration of antibiotics associated with progression to septic shock among patients with suspected infection?
This was a retrospective cohort study from March 2007 through March 2020. All adults with suspected infection and first antimicrobial administered within 24 h of triage were included. Patients with shock on presentation were excluded. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses predicting progression to septic shock.
Seventy-four thousand one hundred fourteen patient encounters were included in the study. Five thousand five hundred ten patients (7.4%) progressed to septic shock. Of the patients who progressed to septic shock, 88% had received antimicrobials within the first 5 h from triage. In the multivariate logistic model, time (in hours) to first antimicrobial administration showed an OR of 1.03 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001) for progression to septic shock and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = .121) for in-hospital mortality. When adjusted for severity of illness, each hour delayed until initial antimicrobial administration was associated with a 4.0% increase in progression to septic shock for every 1 h up to 24 h from triage. Patients with positive quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) results were given antibiotics at an earlier time point than patients with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score (0.82 h vs 1.2 h; P < .05). However, median time to septic shock was significantly shorter (P < .05) for patients with positive qSOFA results at triage (11.2 h) compared with patients with positive SIRS score at triage (26 h).
Delays in first antimicrobial administration in patients with suspected infection are associated with rapid increases in likelihood of progression to septic shock. Additionally, qSOFA score has higher specificity than SIRS score for predicting septic shock, but is associated with a worse outcome, even when patients receive early antibiotics.
最近医学界的观点对疑似感染但尚未发生感染性休克的脓毒症患者使用早期抗生素提出了质疑。
疑似感染患者从急诊就诊到开始使用抗生素的时间与感染性休克的进展是否相关?
这是一项回顾性队列研究,时间为 2007 年 3 月至 2020 年 3 月。所有在分诊后 24 小时内接受疑似感染和首次抗生素治疗的成年人都被纳入研究。在就诊时出现休克的患者被排除在外。我们进行了单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析,以预测感染性休克的进展。
研究共纳入 74114 例患者就诊。5510 例(7.4%)患者进展为感染性休克。在进展为感染性休克的患者中,88%的患者在分诊后 5 小时内接受了抗生素治疗。在多变量逻辑模型中,首次接受抗生素治疗的时间(小时)显示,与感染性休克进展相关的比值比(OR)为 1.03(95%可信区间,1.02-1.04;P<0.001),与院内死亡率相关的 OR 为 1.02(95%可信区间,0.99-1.04;P=0.121)。当调整疾病严重程度时,与初始抗生素治疗时间每延迟 1 小时,在分诊后 24 小时内,感染性休克进展的风险增加 4.0%。与 SIRS 评分阳性的患者相比,qSOFA 评分阳性的患者更快接受抗生素治疗(0.82 小时 vs 1.2 小时;P<0.05)。然而,在分诊时 qSOFA 评分阳性的患者的感染性休克中位时间明显短于(P<0.05)分诊时 SIRS 评分阳性的患者(11.2 小时 vs 26 小时)。
疑似感染患者首次抗生素治疗的延迟与感染性休克进展的可能性迅速增加有关。此外,qSOFA 评分预测感染性休克的特异性高于 SIRS 评分,但与更差的预后相关,即使患者接受了早期抗生素治疗。