Naqvi Fatima, Jain Pranav, Umer Amna, Rana Bilal, Hadique Sarah
Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Crit Care Explor. 2022 Dec 1;4(12):e0807. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000807. eCollection 2022 Dec.
Source control is important in management of septic shock. We studied differences in outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock who required source control intervention compared with those who did not need such intervention and the effect of the timing of source control on various clinical outcomes.
Prospective observational study from February 28, 2020, to March 31, 2021.
Medical ICU of academic quaternary medical center.
Two hundred five adult (≥18 yr) ICU patients.
None.
Patients were divided into a medical treatment group and a source control group. Patients requiring source control were further divided into early (intervention performed < 24 hr) and late (≥ 24 hr) source control groups. The primary outcomes were 30-day and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), days on mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy. A total of 45.9% patients underwent source control. Of these, early source control was performed in 44.7% and late source control in 55.3% of patients. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or ICU mortality in the medical versus source control groups or in early versus late source control groups. Compared with the medical group, mean hospital LOS (11.5 vs 17.4 d; < 0.01) and ICU LOS (5.2 vs 7.7 d; < 0.01) were longer in the source control group. The hospital LOS (12.5 vs 21.4 d; < 0.01) and ICU LOS (5.2 vs 9.7 d; < 0.01) were also longer in patients who had delayed source control than in patients who had early source control. There were no significant differences in other outcomes.
Although mortality was similar, patients who had delayed source control had a longer ICU and hospital LOS. Early source control may improve health care utilization in septic shock patients.
源头控制在感染性休克的管理中很重要。我们研究了需要进行源头控制干预的脓毒症和感染性休克患者与不需要此类干预的患者在结局上的差异,以及源头控制时机对各种临床结局的影响。
2020年2月28日至2021年3月31日的前瞻性观察性研究。
学术性四级医疗中心的医学重症监护病房。
205名成年(≥18岁)重症监护病房患者。
无。
患者被分为药物治疗组和源头控制组。需要进行源头控制的患者进一步分为早期(干预在<24小时内进行)和晚期(≥24小时)源头控制组。主要结局为30天死亡率和重症监护病房死亡率。次要结局为重症监护病房和医院住院时间(LOS)、机械通气天数以及肾脏替代治疗需求。共有45.9%的患者接受了源头控制。其中,44.7%的患者进行了早期源头控制,55.3%的患者进行了晚期源头控制。药物治疗组与源头控制组之间或早期与晚期源头控制组之间在30天死亡率或重症监护病房死亡率方面无显著差异。与药物治疗组相比,源头控制组的平均住院时间(11.5天对17.4天;<0.01)和重症监护病房住院时间(5.2天对7.7天;<0.01)更长。延迟进行源头控制的患者的住院时间(12.5天对21.4天;<0.01)和重症监护病房住院时间(5.2天对9.7天;<0.01)也比早期进行源头控制的患者更长。其他结局无显著差异。
尽管死亡率相似,但延迟进行源头控制的患者的重症监护病房和住院时间更长。早期源头控制可能会改善感染性休克患者的医疗资源利用情况。