急诊科疑似脓毒症患者快速与延迟使用抗生素的决策分析模型

IF 27.1 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Terra M. Hill, Lauren T. Kerivan, Katherine A. Vilain, Sam Windham, Nima Sarani, Steven Q. Simpson, Christopher A. Guidry
{"title":"急诊科疑似脓毒症患者快速与延迟使用抗生素的决策分析模型","authors":"Terra M. Hill, Lauren T. Kerivan, Katherine A. Vilain, Sam Windham, Nima Sarani, Steven Q. Simpson, Christopher A. Guidry","doi":"10.1007/s00134-025-07899-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Sepsis remains a major health concern with high associated mortality. Adequate treatment involves the use of antibiotic therapy although the timing of antibiotics is controversial. A decision analysis model of antibiotic initiation was created to determine optimal management of patients with suspected sepsis.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Two decision trees were created using data from the published literature. A limited model used mortality as the primary outcome using the impact of antibiotic timing on rates of progression to shock and in-hospital mortality. The primary model included mortality and stewardship-related factors such as antibiotic avoidance and antibiotic-associated adverse events. Rapid initiation of antibiotics was defined as universal antibiotic administration within 3 h of presentation whereas deferred initiation included administration up to 6 h. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each option.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>When considering only mortality, rapid initiation was the optimal strategy. When considering stewardship-related factors, rapid initiation of antibiotics maximized utility in only 40.6% of model iterations. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated rapid initiation of antibiotics was optimal when initiation times were above 1.33 h and the prevalence of infection was above 89.5%. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that as time to antibiotics increased, rate of true infection above which rapid antibiotics is optimal drops from just under 91% to approximately 88.5%.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>We constructed decision analysis models to characterize optimal conditions for antibiotic initiation in suspected sepsis. Our model suggests that the prevalence of infection needs to be approximately 90% for rapid initiation of antibiotics to be the optimal strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":13665,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":27.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision analysis model of rapid versus deferred antibiotic initiation in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department\",\"authors\":\"Terra M. Hill, Lauren T. Kerivan, Katherine A. Vilain, Sam Windham, Nima Sarani, Steven Q. Simpson, Christopher A. Guidry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00134-025-07899-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>Sepsis remains a major health concern with high associated mortality. Adequate treatment involves the use of antibiotic therapy although the timing of antibiotics is controversial. A decision analysis model of antibiotic initiation was created to determine optimal management of patients with suspected sepsis.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Two decision trees were created using data from the published literature. A limited model used mortality as the primary outcome using the impact of antibiotic timing on rates of progression to shock and in-hospital mortality. The primary model included mortality and stewardship-related factors such as antibiotic avoidance and antibiotic-associated adverse events. Rapid initiation of antibiotics was defined as universal antibiotic administration within 3 h of presentation whereas deferred initiation included administration up to 6 h. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each option.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>When considering only mortality, rapid initiation was the optimal strategy. When considering stewardship-related factors, rapid initiation of antibiotics maximized utility in only 40.6% of model iterations. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated rapid initiation of antibiotics was optimal when initiation times were above 1.33 h and the prevalence of infection was above 89.5%. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that as time to antibiotics increased, rate of true infection above which rapid antibiotics is optimal drops from just under 91% to approximately 88.5%.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>We constructed decision analysis models to characterize optimal conditions for antibiotic initiation in suspected sepsis. Our model suggests that the prevalence of infection needs to be approximately 90% for rapid initiation of antibiotics to be the optimal strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":27.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-07899-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-07899-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脓毒症仍然是一个主要的健康问题,死亡率高。适当的治疗包括使用抗生素治疗,尽管抗生素的使用时间存在争议。建立了抗生素起始的决策分析模型,以确定疑似脓毒症患者的最佳管理。方法利用已发表文献中的数据,构建两棵决策树。一个有限的模型使用死亡率作为主要结局,使用抗生素时间对休克进展率和住院死亡率的影响。主要模型包括死亡率和管理相关因素,如抗生素避免和抗生素相关不良事件。快速开始使用抗生素被定义为在出现后3小时内普遍使用抗生素,而延迟开始使用包括长达6小时的使用。进行敏感性分析以评估每种选择的有效性。结果仅考虑死亡率时,快速启动是最佳策略。当考虑管理相关因素时,快速启动抗生素仅在40.6%的模型迭代中实现效用最大化。单因素敏感性分析表明,当起始时间大于1.33 h,感染发生率大于89.5%时,快速起始使用抗生素是最佳的。双向敏感性分析表明,随着抗生素使用时间的增加,真实感染率从略低于91%下降到约88.5%,而快速抗生素是最佳选择。结论我们构建了决策分析模型来描述疑似脓毒症患者使用抗生素的最佳条件。我们的模型表明,感染的患病率需要约为90%,快速启动抗生素是最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Decision analysis model of rapid versus deferred antibiotic initiation in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department

Decision analysis model of rapid versus deferred antibiotic initiation in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department

Purpose

Sepsis remains a major health concern with high associated mortality. Adequate treatment involves the use of antibiotic therapy although the timing of antibiotics is controversial. A decision analysis model of antibiotic initiation was created to determine optimal management of patients with suspected sepsis.

Methods

Two decision trees were created using data from the published literature. A limited model used mortality as the primary outcome using the impact of antibiotic timing on rates of progression to shock and in-hospital mortality. The primary model included mortality and stewardship-related factors such as antibiotic avoidance and antibiotic-associated adverse events. Rapid initiation of antibiotics was defined as universal antibiotic administration within 3 h of presentation whereas deferred initiation included administration up to 6 h. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each option.

Results

When considering only mortality, rapid initiation was the optimal strategy. When considering stewardship-related factors, rapid initiation of antibiotics maximized utility in only 40.6% of model iterations. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated rapid initiation of antibiotics was optimal when initiation times were above 1.33 h and the prevalence of infection was above 89.5%. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that as time to antibiotics increased, rate of true infection above which rapid antibiotics is optimal drops from just under 91% to approximately 88.5%.

Conclusion

We constructed decision analysis models to characterize optimal conditions for antibiotic initiation in suspected sepsis. Our model suggests that the prevalence of infection needs to be approximately 90% for rapid initiation of antibiotics to be the optimal strategy.

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
Intensive Care Medicine
Intensive Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
51.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
326
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Intensive Care Medicine is the premier publication platform fostering the communication and exchange of cutting-edge research and ideas within the field of intensive care medicine on a comprehensive scale. Catering to professionals involved in intensive medical care, including intensivists, medical specialists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, ICM stands as the official journal of The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. ICM is dedicated to advancing the understanding and practice of intensive care medicine among professionals in Europe and beyond. The journal provides a robust platform for disseminating current research findings and innovative ideas in intensive care medicine. Content published in Intensive Care Medicine encompasses a wide range, including review articles, original research papers, letters, reviews, debates, and more.
×
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