Pulmonary nosocomial infection.

No abstract

IntroductionBacteremia is recognized as a critical condition that influences the outcome of sepsis. Although large-scale surveillance studies of bacterial species causing bacteremia have been published, the pathophysiological differences in bacteremias with different causative bacterial species remain unclear. The objective of the present study is to investigate the differences in pathophysiology and the clinical course of bacteremia caused by different bacterial species.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of all consecutive patients admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU) of a university teaching hospital during the eight-year period since introduction of a rapid assay for interleukin (IL)-6 blood level to routine ICU practice in May 2000. White blood cell count, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-6 blood level, and clinical course were compared among different pathogenic bacterial species.ResultsThe 259 eligible patients, as well as 515 eligible culture-positive blood samples collected from them, were included in this study. CRP, IL-6 blood level, and mortality were significantly higher in the septic shock group (n = 57) than in the sepsis group (n = 127) (P < 0.001). The 515 eligible culture-positive blood samples harbored a total of 593 isolates of microorganisms (Gram-positive, 407; Gram-negative, 176; fungi, 10). The incidence of Gram-negative bacteremia was significantly higher in the septic shock group than in the sepsis group (P < 0.001) and in the severe sepsis group (n = 75, P < 0.01). CRP and IL-6 blood level were significantly higher in Gram-negative bacteremia (n = 176) than in Gram-positive bacteremia (n = 407) (P < 0.001, <0.0005, respectively).ConclusionsThe incidence of Gram-negative bacteremia was significantly higher in bacteremic ICU patients with septic shock than in those with sepsis or severe sepsis. Furthermore, CRP and IL-6 levels were significantly higher in Gram-negative bacteremia than in Gram-positive bacteremia. These findings suggest that differences in host responses and virulence mechanisms of different pathogenic microorganisms should be considered in treatment of bacteremic patients, and that new countermeasures beyond conventional antimicrobial medications are urgently needed.

No abstract

Many preclinical studies in critical care medicine and related disciplines rely on hypothesis-driven research in mice. The underlying premise posits that mice sufficiently emulate numerous pathophysiological alterations produced by trauma/sepsis and can serve as an experimental platform for answering clinically relevant questions. Recently the lay press severely criticized the translational relevance of mouse models in critical care medicine. A series of provocative editorials were elicited by a highly-publicized research report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS; February 2013), which identified an unrecognized gene expression profile mismatch between human and murine leukocytes following burn/trauma/endotoxemia. Based on their data, the authors concluded that mouse models of trauma/inflammation are unsuitable for studying corresponding human conditions. We believe this conclusion was not justified. In conjunction with resulting negative commentary in the popular press, it can seriously jeopardize future basic research in critical care medicine. We will address some limitations of that PNAS report to provide a framework for discussing its conclusions and attempt to present a balanced summary of strengths/weaknesses of use of mouse models. While many investigators agree that animal research is a central component for improved patient outcomes, it is important to acknowledge known limitations in clinical translation from mouse to man. The scientific community is responsible to discuss valid limitations without over-interpretation. Hopefully a balanced view of the strengths/weaknesses of using animals for trauma/endotoxemia/critical care research will not result in hasty discount of the clear need for using animals to advance treatment of critically ill patients.