Septic patients in the intensive care unit do not have higher systemic levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) than healthy volunteers

Introducción. El daño oxidativo es postulado como parte de la fisiopatología de la sepsis. Las especies reactivas de oxígeno (reactive oxygen species, ROS) serían su causa. No hay evidencia de los niveles de ROS medidos en sangre venosa en pacientes sépticos y su relación con la mortalidad en terapia intensiva (UTI). Objetivos. Observar si hay diferencias entre los niveles de ROS medidos en sangre venosa en pacientes sépticos y aquellos obtenidos en controles sanos y determinar si los pacientes que mueren en UTI tienen niveles de ROS más altos que los que sobreviven. Material y métodos. Estudio prospectivo observacional. Se incluyeron pacientes sépticos internados en UTI mayores de 18 años y menores 80 años entre 2014 y 2016 y voluntarios sanos. Se excluyeron pacientes embarazadas. Se midió con la técnica de diclorofluorosceína. Resultados. No hubo diferencias significativas en los niveles de ROS medidos con diclorofluorosceína entre pacientes sépticos y voluntarios sanos (emisión media: 0,1 contra 0,109 [p = 0,36]) ni entre los pacientes que morían en la internación en UTI y los que sobrevivían (emisión media, 0,103 contra 0,099 [p = 0,7]). Conclusiones. Los pacientes sépticos no tienen mayores niveles de ROS sistémicos que los voluntarios sanos y los pacientes que mueren en terapia no tienen mayores niveles de ROS sistémicos que aquellos que sobreviven. Los niveles de ROS en sangre venosa no serían parte de la fisiopatología de la sepsis.Introduction. Oxidative damage is postulated as part of the pathophysiology of sepsis. The reactive oxygen species (ROS) would be the cause of said damage. There is no evidence of ROS levels in septic patients’ venous blood and their association with mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Goals. To observe if there are differences between ROS levels measured in venous blood in septic patients and those obtained in healthy controls, and to determine whether patients who die in an ICU have higher ROS levels than those who survive. Material and methods. Prospective observational study. We included septic patients hospitalized in ICUs above 18 years and below 80 years of age between 2014 and 2016, and healthy volunteers. Pregnant patients were excluded. Levels were measured through dichlorofluororescein technique. Results. There were no significant differences in ROS levels measured through dichlorofluororescein technique between septic patients and healthy volunteers (mean emission, 0.1 vs 0.109 [p = 0.36]) or between patients dying while being hospitalized in the ICU and those who survived (mean emission, 0.103 vs. 0.099 [p = 0.7]). Conclusions. Septic patients do not have higher systemic ROS levels than healthy volunteers, and patients who die while being in intensive care do not have higher systemic ROS levels than those who survive. ROS levels in venous blood would not be part of the pathophysiology of sepsis.Fil: Chapela, Sebastián P.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina; Argentina. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Burgos, Isabel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Ballestero, Florencia M.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Raña, María S.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Lascar, Florencia. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Sac, Santiago. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Lucero, Pablo. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Descotte, Emiliano J.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Soloaga, Elías D.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Blasco, Miguel A.. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Alonso, Manuel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Ciclo Básico Común; ArgentinaFil: Stella, Carlos Alberto. Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas; Argentin

Bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent hospitalized patients and appropriateness of empirical treatment recommendations: an international point-prevalence study

An accurate knowledge of the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is key for selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatments. Very few etiological studies assessed the appropriateness of empiric guideline recommendations at a multinational level. This study aims at the following: (i) describing the bacterial etiologic distribution of CAP and (ii) assessing the appropriateness of the empirical treatment recommendations by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CAP in light of the bacterial pathogens diagnosed as causative agents of CAP. Secondary analysis of the GLIMP, a point-prevalence international study which enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP in 2015. The analysis was limited to immunocompetent patients tested for bacterial CAP agents within 24 h of admission. The CAP CPGs evaluated included the following: the 2007 and 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and selected country-specific CPGs. Among 2564 patients enrolled, 35.3% had an identifiable pathogen. Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.2%) was the most frequently identified pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.4%). CPGs appropriately recommend covering more than 90% of all the potential pathogens causing CAP, with the exception of patients enrolled from Germany, Pakistan, and Croatia. The 2019 ATS/IDSA CPGs appropriately recommend covering 93.6% of the cases compared with 90.3% of the ERS CPGs (p < 0.01). S. pneumoniae remains the most common pathogen in patients hospitalized with CAP. Multinational CPG recommendations for patients with CAP seem to appropriately cover the most common pathogens and should be strongly encouraged for the management of CAP patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Prevalence and Etiology of Community-acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND: The correct management of immunocompromised patients with pneumonia is debated. We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and characteristics of immunocompromised patients coming from the community with pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an international, multicenter study enrolling adult patients coming from the community with pneumonia and hospitalized in 222 hospitals in 54 countries worldwide. Risk factors for immunocompromise included AIDS, aplastic anemia, asplenia, hematological cancer, chemotherapy, neutropenia, biological drug use, lung transplantation, chronic steroid use, and solid tumor. RESULTS: At least 1 risk factor for immunocompromise was recorded in 18% of the 3702 patients enrolled. The prevalences of risk factors significantly differed across continents and countries, with chronic steroid use (45%), hematological cancer (25%), and chemotherapy (22%) the most common. Among immunocompromised patients, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens were the most frequently identified, and prevalences did not differ from those in immunocompetent patients. Risk factors for immunocompromise were independently associated with neither Pseudomonas aeruginosa nor non-community-acquired bacteria. Specific risk factors were independently associated with fungal infections (odds ratio for AIDS and hematological cancer, 15.10 and 4.65, respectively; both P = .001), mycobacterial infections (AIDS; P = .006), and viral infections other than influenza (hematological cancer, 5.49; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be considered by clinicians in prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for CAP in immunocompromised patients. Patients with AIDS and hematological cancer admitted with CAP may have higher prevalences of fungi, mycobacteria, and noninfluenza viruses

Microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia: an international study

This study aimed to describe real-life microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and to assess concordance with the 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) and 2011 European Respiratory Society (ERS) CAP guidelines. This was a cohort study based on the Global Initiative for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia (GLIMP) database, which contains point-prevalence data on adults hospitalised with CAP across 54 countries during 2015. In total, 3702 patients were included. Testing was performed in 3217 patients, and included blood culture (71.1%), sputum culture (61.8%), Legionella urinary antigen test (30.1%), pneumococcal urinary antigen test (30.0%), viral testing (14.9%), acute-phase serology (8.8%), bronchoalveolar lavage culture (8.4%) and pleural fluid culture (3.2%). A pathogen was detected in 1173 (36.5%) patients. Testing attitudes varied significantly according to geography and disease severity. Testing was concordant with IDSA/ATS and ERS guidelines in 16.7% and 23.9% of patients, respectively. IDSA/ATS concordance was higher in Europe than in North America (21.5% versus 9.8%; p<0.01), while ERS concordance was higher in North America than in Europe (33.5% versus 19.5%; p<0.01). Testing practices of adults hospitalised with CAP varied significantly by geography and disease severity. There was a wide discordance between real-life testing practices and IDSA/ATS/ERS guideline recommendations

International prevalence and risk factors evaluation for drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia

Objective: Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most frequent bacterial pathogen isolated in subjects with Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) worldwide. Limited data are available regarding the current global burden and risk factors associated with drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae (DRSP) in CAP subjects. We assessed the multinational prevalence and risk factors for DRSP-CAP in a multinational point-prevalence study. Design: The prevalence of DRSP-CAP was assessed by identification of DRSP in blood or respiratory samples among adults hospitalized with CAP in 54 countries. Prevalence and risk factors were compared among subjects that had microbiological testing and antibiotic susceptibility data. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors independently associated with DRSP-CAP. Results: 3,193 subjects were included in the study. The global prevalence of DRSP-CAP was 1.3% and continental prevalence rates were 7.0% in Africa, 1.2% in Asia, and 1.0% in South America, Europe, and North America, respectively. Macrolide resistance was most frequently identified in subjects with DRSP-CAP (0.6%) followed by penicillin resistance (0.5%). Subjects in Africa were more likely to have DRSP-CAP (OR: 7.6; 95% CI: 3.34-15.35, p < 0.001) when compared to centres representing other continents. Conclusions: This multinational point-prevalence study found a low global prevalence of DRSP-CAP that may impact guideline development and antimicrobial policies. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association

Aspiration risk factors, microbiology, and empiric antibiotics for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background: Aspiration community-acquired pneumonia (ACAP) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with aspiration risk factors (AspRFs) are infections associated with anaerobes, but limited evidence suggests their pathogenic role. Research question: What are the aspiration risk factors, microbiology patterns, and empiric anti-anaerobic use in patients hospitalized with CAP? Study design and methods: This is a secondary analysis of GLIMP, an international, multicenter, point-prevalence study of adults hospitalized with CAP. Patients were stratified into three groups: (1) ACAP, (2) CAP/AspRF+ (CAP with AspRF), and (3) CAP/AspRF- (CAP without AspRF). Data on demographics, comorbidities, microbiological results, and anti-anaerobic antibiotics were analyzed in all groups. Patients were further stratified in severe and nonsevere CAP groups. Results: We enrolled 2,606 patients with CAP, of which 193 (7.4%) had ACAP. Risk factors independently associated with ACAP were male, bedridden, underweight, a nursing home resident, and having a history of stroke, dementia, mental illness, and enteral tube feeding. Among non-ACAP patients, 1,709 (70.8%) had CAP/AspRF+ and 704 (29.2%) had CAP/AspRF-. Microbiology patterns including anaerobes were similar between CAP/AspRF-, CAP/AspRF+ and ACAP (0.0% vs 1.03% vs 1.64%). Patients with severe ACAP had higher rates of total gram-negative bacteria (64.3% vs 44.3% vs 33.3%, P = .021) and lower rates of total gram-positive bacteria (7.1% vs 38.1% vs 50.0%, P 50% in all groups) independent of AspRFs or ACAP received specific or broad-spectrum anti-anaerobic coverage antibiotics. Interpretation: Hospitalized patients with ACAP or CAP/AspRF+ had similar anaerobic flora compared with patients without aspiration risk factors. Gram-negative bacteria were more prevalent in patients with severe ACAP. Despite having similar microbiological flora between groups, a large proportion of CAP patients received anti-anaerobic antibiotic coverage

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: "AbSeS", a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). METHODS: We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. CONCLUSION: This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection.status: publishe

Antimicrobial Lessons From a Large Observational Cohort on Intra-abdominal Infections in Intensive Care Units

evere intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by disease-specific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed.Severe intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by diseasespecific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed

Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis

Purpose: To describe data on epidemiology, microbiology, clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) with secondary peritonitis, with special emphasis on antimicrobial therapy and source control. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, AbSeS) including 2621 adult ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection in 306 ICUs from 42 countries. Time-till-source control intervention was calculated as from time of diagnosis and classified into 'emergency' (&lt; 2 h), 'urgent' (2-6 h), and 'delayed' (&gt; 6 h). Relationships were assessed by logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The cohort included 1077 cases of microbiologically confirmed secondary peritonitis. Mortality was 29.7%. The rate of appropriate empiric therapy showed no difference between survivors and non-survivors (66.4% vs. 61.3%, p = 0.1). A stepwise increase in mortality was observed with increasing Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (19.6% for a value ≤ 4-55.4% for a value &gt; 12, p &lt; 0.001). The highest odds of death were associated with septic shock (OR 3.08 [1.42-7.00]), late-onset hospital-acquired peritonitis (OR 1.71 [1.16-2.52]) and failed source control evidenced by persistent inflammation at day 7 (OR 5.71 [3.99-8.18]). Compared with 'emergency' source control intervention (&lt; 2 h of diagnosis), 'urgent' source control was the only modifiable covariate associated with lower odds of mortality (OR 0.50 [0.34-0.73]). Conclusion: 'Urgent' and successful source control was associated with improved odds of survival. Appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial treatment did not significantly affect survival suggesting that source control is more determinative for outcome

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: "AbSeS", a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

Purpose To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). Methods We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. Conclusion This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection