Comparison between culture-positive and culture-negative septic shock in patients in the emergency department
- PMID: 36104529
- DOI: 10.1007/s10096-022-04496-3
Comparison between culture-positive and culture-negative septic shock in patients in the emergency department
Abstract
Culture results of patients with septic shock affect their management strategies, including antibiotic administration. This study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with culture-negative septic shock (CNSS) and culture-positive septic shock (CPSS) in the emergency department. We also assessed the differences in duration and de-escalation timing of antibiotic administration between the two groups. This single-center, retrospective, case-control study included adult patients diagnosed with septic shock in the emergency department between January 1, 2019 and March 31, 2020. They were divided into the CNSS and CPSS groups based on their culture results. The baseline characteristics, infection sites, culture types, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared. Patients with CPSS (63.7%, 311/488) and CNSS (36.3%, 177/488) were identified. The CPSS and CNSS groups had comparable clinical outcomes, including mechanical ventilation (29.6% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.46), renal replacement therapy (19.3% vs. 23.2%, p = 0.31), 30-day mortality (35.7% vs. 36.7%, p = 0.82), and in-hospital mortality (39.5% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.63). The CNSS group had a significantly shorter duration (13 [8 - 19] vs. 16 [10 - 23], days, p = 0.04) and earlier de-escalation timing (5 [2 - 9] vs. 9 [7 - 12], day, p = 0.02) of antibiotic administration than the CPSS group. Patients with CNSS and CPSS had similar clinical characteristics and proportion of adverse outcomes. Physicians can evaluate the feasibility of early de-escalation or discontinuation of antibiotic administration in patients with CNSS showing clinical improvement.
Keywords: Culture-negative; Emergency department; Prognosis; Septic shock.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche J-D, Coopersmith CM (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315(8):801–810 - DOI
-
- Mayr FB, Yende S, Angus DC (2014) Epidemiol Severe Sepsis Virulence 5(1):4–11
-
- Vincent J-L, Jones G, David S, Olariu E, Cadwell KK (2019) Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 23(1):1–11 - DOI
-
- Kim J-s, Kim Y-J, Kim WY (2021) Characteristics and clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive septic shock: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Crit Care 25(1):1–9 - DOI
-
- Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, Machado FR, Mcintyre L, Ostermann M, Prescott HC (2021) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med 47(11):1181–1247 - DOI
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
