4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation of earlier antibiotic administration in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan: antibiotic action needs time and tissue perfusion to reach target

      letter
      ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor: We read with great interest the paper published in the Journal on November 19, 2019, by Abe et al. [1]. The authors reported not to retrieve any association between earlier antibiotic administration and reduction in in-hospital mortality of severe sepsis. First of all, the authors must be congratulated for their interesting work aiming to clarify the real impact of earlier antibiotic administration in septic shock, one of the key elements of care highlighted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) [2]. Nevertheless, to our opinion, some methodological issues deserve their results interpretation. From a statistical point of view, the categorization of the variable “time-to-antibiotic therapy” induces an information loss. Despite facilitating results interpretation, such categorization implies two consequences. First, it assumes that the treatment effect of antibiotic administration, from the 1st minute, if practically possible, to the 59th minute after diagnosis, is equivalent. Second, it would imply that the antibiotic therapy treatment effect is equivalent in all predefined categories, from 0–60 to 361–1440 min, which does not correspond to the reality, because the relationship between antibiotic therapy and mortality is not linear [3, 4]. In the present study, the negativity of the association between time to antibiotics (continuous variable) and mortality (OR = 0.999 [0.997–1.000]; p = 0.152) reflects this lack of linearity of the antibiotic therapy treatment effect. Furthermore, from a practical point of view, it is quite rare that the antibiotic therapy treatment effect is maximum since the first hour after administration. Beyond this, to reach infected tissues, antibiotics need the restoration of a sufficient tissue perfusion pressure [5]. In their study, the authors [1] take into account the compliance rate to the first line of hemodynamic optimization (fluid expansion completed within 3 h) as a potential cofounder in their multivariate analysis but do not inform about the mean blood pressure (the reflect of tissue perfusion pressure) reached [2]. We fully agree with the authors that the impact of earlier antibiotic therapy is greater for most severe septic patients, but as reminded in the SSC, the outcome of these patients is not only dependent on a sole therapy but more from a bundle of care [2]. More than the completion of guideline principles, we believe that impact on outcome is strongly affected by achievement of objectives, especially when the gravity is higher. Among the objectives to be achieved, we think that early hemodynamic optimization and antibiotic administration are the two utmost treatments allowing to reduce septic shock mortality. Author’s response to letter “Implementation of earlier antibiotic administration in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan: antibiotic action needs time and tissue perfusion to reach target” Toshikazu Abe We appreciate the consideration and comments from the SAMU de Paris regarding our study. Management of time data is one of the most important processes in “time to intervention” studies. We studied multiple different time intervals as we recorded time as a continuous variable; however, results with these values were not different from what we ultimately described. The relationship between time to antibiotic administration and mortality is not linear; therefore, we dealt with time data as a categorical variable. Hourly categorization is the most acceptable time interval used by clinicians. Because the number of patients receiving antibiotics after 361 min was small, we grouped those patients together. Our study did not mention causal inference, and it is a descriptive analysis using implementation science. We did not show mean blood pressure, but we controlled tissue perfusion pressure by using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), which includes a cardiovascular score. We also stratified patients by the presence or absence of shock. However, we did not find any association between time to antibiotic and outcomes with adjustment of those variables. As you noted, the effect of antibiotics would be related to the time to administration and antibiotic sensitivity, concentration, and tissue perfusion. These variables may be even more important than time to administration. The lack of association between time to antibiotic administration and outcomes in our study may have been because of the lack of information about the variables. Other aspects of treatment may have differed among institutions, although we controlled for that using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We believe that the effect of time to administration will be significant only when the overall quality of care is excellent. As with the differences for door to balloon time for acute coronary syndrome noted in the research by Menees and colleagues [6] and the research by Nallamothu and colleagues [7], the difference in quality may only be distinguished in highly standardized facilities. A more accurate diagnosis may allow for better antibiotic choices, which is related to the outcome of time to antibiotic administration [8, 9]. Generally, antibiotics for meningitis should be administrated within 30 min, whereas antibiotics for infective endocarditis can wait for administration until culture results indicate the specific pathogen, as long as the patient’s vital signs are stable. Time recommendations for administration of antibiotics to patients with sepsis could be modified for different sites of infection as well as different clinical presentations, such as vague or apparent symptoms, and shock [10].

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

          Background In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. Methods We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. Results Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). Conclusions More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI.

            Current guidelines for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction recommend a door-to-balloon time of 90 minutes or less for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Door-to-balloon time has become a performance measure and is the focus of regional and national quality-improvement initiatives. However, it is not known whether national improvements in door-to-balloon times have been accompanied by a decline in mortality. We analyzed annual trends in door-to-balloon times and in-hospital mortality using data from 96,738 admissions for patients undergoing primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction from July 2005 through June 2009 at 515 hospitals participating in the CathPCI Registry. In a subgroup analysis using a linked Medicare data set, we assessed 30-day mortality. Median door-to-balloon times declined significantly, from 83 minutes in the 12 months from July 2005 through June 2006 to 67 minutes in the 12 months from July 2008 through June 2009 (P<0.001). Similarly, the percentage of patients for whom the door-to-balloon time was 90 minutes or less increased from 59.7% in the first year to 83.1% in the last year (P<0.001). Despite improvements in door-to-balloon times, there was no significant overall change in unadjusted in-hospital mortality (4.8% in 2005-2006 and 4.7% in 2008-2009, P=0.43 for trend) or in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (5.0% in 2005-2006 and 4.7% in 2008-2009, P=0.34), nor was a significant difference observed in unadjusted 30-day mortality (P=0.64). Although national door-to-balloon times have improved significantly for patients undergoing primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in-hospital mortality has remained virtually unchanged. These data suggest that additional strategies are needed to reduce in-hospital mortality in this population. (Funded by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Relation between door-to-balloon times and mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention over time: a retrospective study.

              Recent reductions in average door-to-balloon (D2B) times have not been associated with decreases in mortality at the population level. We investigated this seemingly paradoxical finding by assessing components of this association at the individual and population levels simultaneously. We postulated that the changing population of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) contributed to secular trends toward an increasing mortality risk, despite consistently decreased mortality in individual patients with shorter D2B times.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                romain.jouffroy@aphp.fr
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                14 January 2020
                14 January 2020
                2020
                : 24
                : 17
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0593 9113, GRID grid.412134.1, SAMU de Paris, Service d’Anesthésie Réanimation, Hôpital Universitaire Necker - Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, and Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5, ; Paris, France
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2616-6132
                Article
                2727
                10.1186/s13054-020-2727-8
                6958718
                31937340
                b66a906d-87a4-4ebe-8f20-b2a91d5e6947
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 10 December 2019
                : 1 January 2020
                Categories
                Letter
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article