急诊部门疑似脓毒症患者早期经验性抗生素治疗:系统回顾。

IF 6.3
Marcelo R Rodríguez, Ferran Llopis Roca, Rafael Rubio Díaz, Darío Eduardo García, Agustín Julián-Jiménez
{"title":"急诊部门疑似脓毒症患者早期经验性抗生素治疗:系统回顾。","authors":"Marcelo R Rodríguez, Ferran Llopis Roca, Rafael Rubio Díaz, Darío Eduardo García, Agustín Julián-Jiménez","doi":"10.55633/s3me/092.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patients with suspected infections account for 15% to 35% of hospital emergency department (ED) caseloads in Spain and Latin America. The main objective of this systematic review was to compare evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of early (3 hours after triage) vs deferred ($ 3-6 hours) antibiotic therapy prescribed in EDs for adults with serious infections or sepsis. Efficacy and improved clinical course were defined by reduced progression to septic shock and short- and long-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, the Web of Sciencie, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for the period from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023. No language restrictions were set. We used the following Medical English Subject Headings and strings: \"Antibiotic OR Antibiotic Treatment OR Antibiotic Therapy OR Early Antibiotic Treatment OR Early Antibiotic Therapy,\" \"Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis,\" \"Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department,\" \"Timing,\" \"Early,\" and \"Adults.\" Observational cohort studies were included. To evaluate quality of research design and risk of bias, we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Case-control studies, narrative reviews and other types of articles were excluded. We completed a narrative review of the findings and did not undertake meta-analysis. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024520687).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 1528 articles, of which 7 met the criteria for inclusion and analysis. The 7 studies comprised data for 118349 patients, 74141 of whom (62.6%) received early antibiotic treatment. Three studies were classified as high quality, 3 moderate, and 1 low. The 3 high-quality studies provided information on 2 aspects: 1) hospital and short-term mortality and 2) long-term mortality. One high-quality study showed a tendency for hospital and 30-day mortality to increase when antibiotics were administered more than 6 hours after triage vs within 1 hour of triage (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.91-5.59; P = .08). Another reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P = .024) for hospital mortality associated with each hour of therapeutic delay after triage. The third study reported that each additional hour of delay after triage was associated with a 10% increase (95% CI, 5%-14%; P .001) in the probability of 360-day mortality. Finally, the single low-quality study reported that each hour of delay in treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P .001) for increased risk of septic shock.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early initiation of antibiotic therapy, preferably within 3 hours of triage, can be recommended in cases of serious infection (sepsis or serious sepsis that do not meet the criteria for septic shock). In fact, based on a tendency for higher short- and long-term mortality associated with delay and a higher probability of developing septic shock with each hour of delay, therapy should start as soon as possible if infection is confirmed or suspected in the absence of an alternative diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":93987,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":"37 1","pages":"44-55"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early empirical antibiotherapy in patients attended for suspected sepsis in emergency departments: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Marcelo R Rodríguez, Ferran Llopis Roca, Rafael Rubio Díaz, Darío Eduardo García, Agustín Julián-Jiménez\",\"doi\":\"10.55633/s3me/092.2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patients with suspected infections account for 15% to 35% of hospital emergency department (ED) caseloads in Spain and Latin America. The main objective of this systematic review was to compare evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of early (3 hours after triage) vs deferred ($ 3-6 hours) antibiotic therapy prescribed in EDs for adults with serious infections or sepsis. Efficacy and improved clinical course were defined by reduced progression to septic shock and short- and long-term mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, the Web of Sciencie, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for the period from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023. No language restrictions were set. We used the following Medical English Subject Headings and strings: \\\"Antibiotic OR Antibiotic Treatment OR Antibiotic Therapy OR Early Antibiotic Treatment OR Early Antibiotic Therapy,\\\" \\\"Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis,\\\" \\\"Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department,\\\" \\\"Timing,\\\" \\\"Early,\\\" and \\\"Adults.\\\" Observational cohort studies were included. To evaluate quality of research design and risk of bias, we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Case-control studies, narrative reviews and other types of articles were excluded. We completed a narrative review of the findings and did not undertake meta-analysis. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024520687).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 1528 articles, of which 7 met the criteria for inclusion and analysis. The 7 studies comprised data for 118349 patients, 74141 of whom (62.6%) received early antibiotic treatment. Three studies were classified as high quality, 3 moderate, and 1 low. The 3 high-quality studies provided information on 2 aspects: 1) hospital and short-term mortality and 2) long-term mortality. One high-quality study showed a tendency for hospital and 30-day mortality to increase when antibiotics were administered more than 6 hours after triage vs within 1 hour of triage (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.91-5.59; P = .08). Another reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P = .024) for hospital mortality associated with each hour of therapeutic delay after triage. The third study reported that each additional hour of delay after triage was associated with a 10% increase (95% CI, 5%-14%; P .001) in the probability of 360-day mortality. Finally, the single low-quality study reported that each hour of delay in treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P .001) for increased risk of septic shock.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early initiation of antibiotic therapy, preferably within 3 hours of triage, can be recommended in cases of serious infection (sepsis or serious sepsis that do not meet the criteria for septic shock). In fact, based on a tendency for higher short- and long-term mortality associated with delay and a higher probability of developing septic shock with each hour of delay, therapy should start as soon as possible if infection is confirmed or suspected in the absence of an alternative diagnosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"44-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/092.2024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/092.2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在西班牙和拉丁美洲,疑似感染患者占医院急诊科(ED)病例量的15%至35%。本系统评价的主要目的是比较证据支持早期(分诊后3小时)与延迟(3 -6小时)在急诊科对严重感染或败血症的成人处方抗生素治疗的安全性和有效性。疗效和改善的临床过程是通过减少脓毒性休克的进展和短期和长期死亡率来定义的。方法:以系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)为指导。检索了PubMed、Web of science、EMBASE、Lilacs、Cochrane、Epistemonikos、Tripdatabase和ClinicalTrials.gov,检索时间为2010年1月1日至2023年12月31日。没有设置语言限制。我们使用了以下医学英语主题标题和字符串:“抗生素或抗生素治疗或抗生素治疗或早期抗生素治疗或早期抗生素治疗”,“感染或细菌感染或败血症”,“紧急情况或紧急情况或急诊科”,“时机”,“早期”和“成人”。纳入观察性队列研究。为了评价研究设计的质量和偏倚风险,我们采用了纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表。排除病例对照研究、叙述性综述和其他类型的文章。我们完成了对研究结果的叙述性回顾,没有进行meta分析。该综述已在PROSPERO数据库中注册(CRD42024520687)。结果:共检索到1528篇文献,其中7篇符合纳入分析标准。这7项研究纳入了118349例患者的数据,其中74141例(62.6%)接受了早期抗生素治疗。3项研究为高质量,3项为中等,1项为低质量。这3项高质量研究提供了2个方面的信息:1)住院和短期死亡率,2)长期死亡率。一项高质量的研究显示,分诊后6小时以上使用抗生素与分诊后1小时内使用抗生素相比,住院死亡率和30天死亡率有增加的趋势(风险比,2.25;95% ci, 0.91-5.59;P = .08)。另一项报告的校正优势比为1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13;P = 0.024)与分诊后每小时治疗延迟相关的住院死亡率。第三项研究报告说,分诊后每多延迟一个小时,死亡率增加10% (95% CI, 5%-14%;P .001)与360天死亡率的关系。最后,一项低质量的研究报告称,每延迟治疗一小时,优势比为1.08 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04;P .001)表明感染性休克的风险增加。结论:严重感染(脓毒症或不符合脓毒症休克标准的严重脓毒症)可推荐早期开始抗生素治疗,最好在分诊后3小时内。事实上,考虑到与延迟相关的短期和长期死亡率较高的趋势,以及每延迟一小时发生脓毒性休克的可能性较高,如果在没有其他诊断的情况下确诊或怀疑感染,应尽快开始治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early empirical antibiotherapy in patients attended for suspected sepsis in emergency departments: a systematic review.

Objective: Patients with suspected infections account for 15% to 35% of hospital emergency department (ED) caseloads in Spain and Latin America. The main objective of this systematic review was to compare evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of early (3 hours after triage) vs deferred ($ 3-6 hours) antibiotic therapy prescribed in EDs for adults with serious infections or sepsis. Efficacy and improved clinical course were defined by reduced progression to septic shock and short- and long-term mortality.

Methods: The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, the Web of Sciencie, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for the period from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023. No language restrictions were set. We used the following Medical English Subject Headings and strings: "Antibiotic OR Antibiotic Treatment OR Antibiotic Therapy OR Early Antibiotic Treatment OR Early Antibiotic Therapy," "Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis," "Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department," "Timing," "Early," and "Adults." Observational cohort studies were included. To evaluate quality of research design and risk of bias, we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Case-control studies, narrative reviews and other types of articles were excluded. We completed a narrative review of the findings and did not undertake meta-analysis. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024520687).

Results: The search yielded 1528 articles, of which 7 met the criteria for inclusion and analysis. The 7 studies comprised data for 118349 patients, 74141 of whom (62.6%) received early antibiotic treatment. Three studies were classified as high quality, 3 moderate, and 1 low. The 3 high-quality studies provided information on 2 aspects: 1) hospital and short-term mortality and 2) long-term mortality. One high-quality study showed a tendency for hospital and 30-day mortality to increase when antibiotics were administered more than 6 hours after triage vs within 1 hour of triage (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.91-5.59; P = .08). Another reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P = .024) for hospital mortality associated with each hour of therapeutic delay after triage. The third study reported that each additional hour of delay after triage was associated with a 10% increase (95% CI, 5%-14%; P .001) in the probability of 360-day mortality. Finally, the single low-quality study reported that each hour of delay in treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P .001) for increased risk of septic shock.

Conclusions: Early initiation of antibiotic therapy, preferably within 3 hours of triage, can be recommended in cases of serious infection (sepsis or serious sepsis that do not meet the criteria for septic shock). In fact, based on a tendency for higher short- and long-term mortality associated with delay and a higher probability of developing septic shock with each hour of delay, therapy should start as soon as possible if infection is confirmed or suspected in the absence of an alternative diagnosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信