Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Jan 6;25(1):11.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03421-4.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive septic shock: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive septic shock: a single-center retrospective cohort study

June-Sung Kim et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative versus culture-positive septic shock.

Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of data from a prospective registry from 2014 to 2018. A total of 2,499 adult patients with septic shock were enrolled. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, a requirement for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, and in-hospital mortality.

Results: Of 1,718 patients with septic shock, 1,012 (58.9%) patients were culture-positive (blood 803, urine 302, sputum 102, others 204) and the median pathogen detection time was 9.5 h (aerobic 10.2 h and anaerobic 9.0 h). The most common site of culture-positive infection was the hepatobiliary tract (39.5%), while for the culture-negative it was the lower respiratory tract (38.2%). The culture-negative group had a lower mean body temperature (37.3 vs 37.7 ℃), lactate (2.5 vs. 3.2 mmol/L), C-reactive protein (11.1 vs 11.9 mg/dL), and sequential organ failure assessment score (7.0 vs. 8.0) than that of the culture-positive group. However, 90-day mortality between the groups was not significantly different (32.7 vs 32.2%, p = 0.83), and the other clinical outcomes also did not differ significantly. Moreover, a shorter culture detection time was correlated with a higher sequential organ failure assessment score but not with mortality.

Conclusion: Patients with septic shock are frequently culture-negative, especially in cases where the infection focus is in the lower respiratory tract. Although culture-negative was associated with a degree of organ dysfunction, it was not an independent predictor of death.

Keywords: Culture; Mortality; Sepsis; Septic shock; Time to blood culture positivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study population. Prospective septic shock registry excluded 605 patients (218 for transfer from/to other hospitals, 298 for do-not-resuscitate orders, 89 for refuse to manage), and 176 patients with proven viral and fungal pathogen were also precluded from this analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Frequencies of infection foci (a) and the culture types (b) by the culture results. a Isolated blood stream infection, skin and soft tissue, and central nervous system were categorized as “other”. b Other culture types included pleural, ascites, stool, and pus. Abbreviations: LRT = lower respiratory tract; UT = urinary tract; GI = gastro-intestinal; HBP = hepatobiliary-pancreas
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of Kaplan–Meier survival curves between patients with culture-negative (CNSS) and culture-positive septic shock (CPSS)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Distributions and scatter plots of the first detected culture-positive time of the aerobic and anaerobic pathogens. Time-to-positivity in both aerobic (a) and anaerobic (b) pathogens. Scatter plots of aerobic (c) and anaerobic (d) time according to sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017. Lancet. 2020;395:200–211. - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Backer D, Cecconi M, Lipman J, Machado F, Myatra SN, Ostermann M, et al. Challenges in the management of septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:420–433. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05544-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304–377. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, Roberts D, Light B, Parrillo JE, et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest. 2009;136:1237–1248. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-0087. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rannikko J, Syrjänen J, Seiskari T, Aittoniemi J, Huttunen R. Sepsis-related mortality in 497 cases with blood culture-positive sepsis in an emergency department. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;58:52–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2017.03.005. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources