IntroductionCulture-negative sepsis is a common but relatively understudied condition. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative versus culture-positive severe sepsis.MethodsThis was a prospective observational cohort study of 1001 patients who were admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital from 2004 to 2009 with severe sepsis. Patients with documented fungal, viral, and parasitic infections were excluded.ResultsThere were 415 culture-negative patients (41.5%) and 586 culture-positive patients (58.5%). Gram-positive bacteria were isolated in 257 patients, and gram-negative bacteria in 390 patients. Culture-negative patients were more often women and had fewer comorbidities, less tachycardia, higher blood pressure, lower procalcitonin levels, lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (median 25.0 (interquartile range 19.0 to 32.0) versus 27.0 (21.0 to 33.0), P = 0.001) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, less cardiovascular, central nervous system, and coagulation failures, and less need for vasoactive agents than culture-positive patients. The lungs were a more common site of infection, while urinary tract, soft tissue and skin infections, infective endocarditis and primary bacteremia were less common in culture-negative than in culture-positive patients. Culture-negative patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (12 days (7.0 to 21.0) versus 15.0 (7.0 to27.0), P = 0.02) and lower ICU mortality than culture-positive patients. Hospital mortality was lower in the culture-negative group (35.9%) than in the culture-positive group (44.0%, P = 0.01), the culture-positive subgroup, which received early appropriate antibiotics (41.9%, P = 0.11), and the culture-positive subgroup, which did not (55.5%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, culture positivity was not independently associated with mortality on multivariable analysis.ConclusionsSignificant differences between culture-negative and culture-positive sepsis are identified, with the former group having fewer comorbidities, milder severity of illness, shorter hospitalizations, and lower mortality.
Background: The 2007 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines defined severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and recommended intensive care unit (ICU) admission when patients fulfilled three out of nine minor criteria. These criteria have not been validated. Methods: All patients admitted to our hospital from 2004 to 2007 for CAP were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who fulfilled any IDSA/ATS major criteria for severe CAP at the emergency department (ie, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors) were excluded. The predictive characteristics of the IDSA/ATS minor criteria were compared with those of the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and the CURB-65 score for hospital mortality and ICU admission. Results: 1242 patients were studied (mean age 65.7 years, hospital mortality 14.7%). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the IDSA/ATS minor criteria were 0.88 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.91) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) for predicting hospital mortality and ICU admission, respectively. These were greater than the corresponding areas for the PSI and the CURB-65 score (p,0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the minor criteria were 81.4%, 82.9%, 45.2% and 96.3%, respectively, for hospital mortality and 58.3%, 90.6%, 52.9% and 92.3%, respectively, for ICU admission. The minor criteria were more specific than the PSI and more sensitive than the CURB-65 score for both outcomes. Conclusion: These findings support the use of the IDSA/ ATS minor criteria to predict hospital mortality and guide ICU admission in inpatients with CAP who do not require emergency mechanical ventilation or vasopressors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.