Lee Ryan, Al Rifaie Rawaa, Subedi Keshab, Coletti Christian
Emergency Medicine, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, USA.
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 26;16(12):e76418. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76418. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Sepsis remains a prevalent critical illness encountered in emergency departments and intensive care units (ICU), with culture-negative sepsis constituting 30-60% of cases. The effect of culture type on treatment and outcomes remains unclear, and conflicting evidence exists regarding disparities between Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections.
To further describe and compare characteristics and outcomes of culture-positive versus culture-negative sepsis.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included 1375 patients admitted to the ICU of a single tertiary care hospital between 2016 and 2019 with a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock. Patients who did not meet the screening criteria, lacked drawn or documented cultures, or had documented non-bacterial infections, were excluded.
The primary outcome was disease severity and secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and duration of hospital and ICU stay. The principal and secondary exposure variables were blood culture status (positive vs. negative) and Gram staining (positive vs. negative), respectively.
Overall, 943 patients (68.5%) were culture-negative and 432 (31.5%) were culture-positive. Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from 178 patients, Gram-negative bacteria from 199 patients, and both from 55 patients. Culture-positive patients demonstrated an almost two-fold higher likelihood of requiring vasopressors (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.98), a higher incidence of stress-dose steroid administration (adjusted OR, 1.68), and higher resuscitative fluid administration at six and 72 hours than culture-negative patients. No significant between-group differences emerged in the ICU or hospital length of stay, or mortality. No significant variations were observed when comparing Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteremia.
Although significant differences in illness severity existed between blood culture-negative and blood culture-positive patients with sepsis, patient-oriented secondary outcomes did not exhibit significant between-group differences. These results indicate that clinicians should not be reassured by the lack of proven bacteremia in patients with suspected sepsis, given similar outcomes.
脓毒症仍然是急诊科和重症监护病房(ICU)中常见的危重病,血培养阴性脓毒症占病例的30%-60%。培养类型对治疗和结局的影响仍不清楚,关于革兰氏阳性菌和革兰氏阴性菌感染之间差异的证据相互矛盾。
进一步描述和比较血培养阳性与血培养阴性脓毒症的特征和结局。
设计、设置和参与者:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了2016年至2019年间在一家三级医疗中心ICU住院的1375例诊断为脓毒症或脓毒性休克的患者。不符合筛查标准、缺乏采集或记录的培养物或有记录的非细菌感染的患者被排除。
主要结局是疾病严重程度,次要结局包括住院死亡率以及住院和ICU住院时间。主要和次要暴露变量分别是血培养状态(阳性与阴性)和革兰氏染色(阳性与阴性)。
总体而言,943例患者(68.5%)血培养阴性,432例(31.5%)血培养阳性。从178例患者中分离出革兰氏阳性菌,199例患者中分离出革兰氏阴性菌,55例患者中两种细菌都有分离。与血培养阴性患者相比,血培养阳性患者需要血管升压药的可能性几乎高出两倍(调整后的优势比(OR):1.98),应激剂量类固醇给药的发生率更高(调整后的OR,1.68),并且在6小时和72小时时复苏液体的给予量更多。在ICU或住院时间或死亡率方面,两组之间没有出现显著差异。比较革兰氏阳性菌血症和革兰氏阴性菌血症时,未观察到显著差异。
虽然血培养阴性和血培养阳性的脓毒症患者在疾病严重程度上存在显著差异,但以患者为导向的次要结局在组间没有显著差异。这些结果表明,鉴于结局相似,临床医生不应因疑似脓毒症患者缺乏确诊菌血症而感到放心。