Yang Long, Lin Yue, Wang Junyu, Song Jianmei, Wei Bing, Zhang Xiangqun, Yang Jun, Liu Bo
Department of Emergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, & Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, People's Republic of China.
Department of Radiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Infect Drug Resist. 2021 Oct 12;14:4191-4205. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S334161. eCollection 2021.
Few studies have studied the relationship between blood culture and mortality in sepsis patients. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of positive and negative blood culture sepsis.
We performed a study on 640 patients suffering from sepsis in Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital from October 2017 to December 2019. The primary findings revolved around length and expenditure of hospital stay, the possibility of suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and any requirements for mechanical ventilation. The secondary findings revolved around whether the patient died early (28-day) or late (28-to-90-day).
A total of 592 of the 640 patients met the inclusion criteria for sepsis, with 274 of them having culture-positive results. The culture-positive patients were mostly elderly suffering from diabetes and at risk of cancer, with a higher white blood cell count, and higher procalcitonin. Additionally, they scored higher in their acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score (15 vs.11, =0.010), as well as in their predisposition, infection, response, and organ dysfunction (17 vs 11, <0.001) than the individuals in the culture-negative group. Culture-positive patients had a longer duration of hospital stay (14 vs 6, <0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (14.6% vs 8.5%, =0.019) than culture-negative ones. No significant difference in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (45.7% vs.36.4%, =0.254) or early mortality (9.5% vs 7.2%, =0.321) was noted between the two groups. However, the culture-positive patients had increased late mortality (15.7% vs.6.9%, =0.001), when compared with those with culture-negative results in the cohort. Furthermore, the culture-positive patients who received the appropriate antibiotics early had a lower mortality rate than the culture-negative patients (7.3% vs.14.2%, =0.008).
Culture-positive patients had higher in-hospital mortality, comparable early mortality, and worse late mortality than the culture-negative patients. Early appropriate use of antibiotics might reduce mortality and improve clinical prognosis.
很少有研究探讨脓毒症患者血培养与死亡率之间的关系。本研究旨在比较血培养阳性和阴性脓毒症的特征及预后。
我们对2017年10月至2019年12月在北京朝阳医院就诊的640例脓毒症患者进行了研究。主要研究结果围绕住院时间和费用、发生急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的可能性以及机械通气需求。次要研究结果围绕患者是早期(28天内)还是晚期(28至90天)死亡。
640例患者中共有592例符合脓毒症纳入标准,其中274例血培养结果为阳性。血培养阳性患者多为患有糖尿病且有癌症风险的老年人,白细胞计数更高,降钙素原水平更高。此外,与血培养阴性组相比,他们的急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II(APACHE II)更高(15比11,P = 0.010),以及在易感性、感染、反应和器官功能障碍评分(SOFA)方面更高(17比11,P < 0.001)。血培养阳性患者的住院时间更长(14天比6天,P < 0.001),住院死亡率更高(14.6%比8.5%,P = 0.019)。两组在重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率(45.7%比36.4%,P = 0.254)或早期死亡率(9.5%比7.2%,P = 0.321)方面无显著差异。然而,与队列中血培养阴性结果的患者相比,血培养阳性患者的晚期死亡率增加(15.7%比6.9%,P = 0.001)。此外,早期接受适当抗生素治疗的血培养阳性患者的死亡率低于血培养阴性患者(7.3%比14.2%,P = 0.008)。
血培养阳性患者的住院死亡率更高,早期死亡率相当,晚期死亡率更差。早期适当使用抗生素可能降低死亡率并改善临床预后。