Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen
{"title":"脓毒症的研究由于缺乏对疑似感染的明确定义而受到阻碍。","authors":"Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen","doi":"10.61409/A03250219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"72 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sepsis research is hampered by the lack of a clear definition of suspected infection.\",\"authors\":\"Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.61409/A03250219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"volume\":\"72 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61409/A03250219\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A03250219","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sepsis research is hampered by the lack of a clear definition of suspected infection.
Introduction: A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.
Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.
Results: Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.
Conclusions: Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.
Funding: The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.
期刊介绍:
The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content.
DMJ will publish the following articles:
• Original articles
• Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences
• DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.