Open Access

The early antibiotic therapy in septic patients - milestone or sticking point?

  • Michael Bernhard1Email author,
  • Christoph Lichtenstern2,
  • Christian Eckmann3 and
  • Markus A Weigand2
Critical Care201418:671

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0671-1

Published: 30 November 2014

Abstract

Sepsis is one of the oldest and most elusive syndromes in medicine. Every effort should be made to treat these patients with the best available evidence. As a milestone, empiric antimicrobial therapy is essential in order to reduce morbidity and mortality of septic patients. As a sticking point, the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents may be associated with induction of resistance among common pathogens.

Rationale for early antibiotic therapy

Worldwide, the annual prevalence of sepsis is estimated at 19 million cases [1]. The mortality rates in severe sepsis were reduced to 20% to 30% because of advances in training, recognition, surveillance, monitoring, and rapid initial antibiotic therapy and organ support [1],[2]. The most recent update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines was published in 2013 [3]. A consensus committee provided valuable and clear recommendations on treatment of sepsis and septic shock (Table 1). One of the main focuses is the administration of a broad-spectrum antibiotic (Table 2) [3]. It is recommended that antimicrobials be administrated within the first hour of recognition of septic shock and severe sepsis without septic shock [4]–[7]. Moreover, it is recommended that initial anti-infective therapy include one or more drugs that have activity against all likely pathogens and penetrate in adequate concentrations into the target tissue [3]. The selected antibiotic strategy should anticipate the site of infection, medical and culture history, and local microbial susceptibility results, all in an emergency situation [1],[8].
Table 1

Extract of the key recommendations and suggestions of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines [3]

Early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hours after recognition (1C)

Blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C)

Imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG)

Administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hour of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy

Reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B)

Infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hours of diagnosis (1C)

Table 2

Extract from the Surviving Sepsis Care bundles [3]

To be completed within 3 hours

1.

Measure lactate levels.

2.

Obtain blood cultures prior to administration of antibiotics.

3.

Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics.

4.

Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension of lactate of at least 4 mmol/L.

New research results

Appropriate antibiotic therapy

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Paul and colleagues [9] found a pooled odds ratio of appropriate antibiotic therapy during the first 48 hours for all-cause mortality of 1.60 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.86), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 10 (95% CI 8 to 15). Kumar and colleagues [4] found a time-dependent mortality with a 7.6% decrease in survival for each hour of antibiotic delay in patients with sepsis.

Timing of antimicrobial therapy

Some recently published investigations supported the findings by Kumar and colleagues [4] (Table 3). Ferrer and colleagues [10] presented a retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively. In total, 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock from 165 ICUs in Europe, the US, and South America were included. Of them, 17,990 patients received antibiotics after identification of sepsis, and the in-hospital mortality was 29.7%. After 1 hour, hospital mortality steadily increased with a delay in antibiotic timing. The adjusted hospital mortality odds ratios steadily increased from 1.00 to 1.52 as time to antibiotic administration increased from 0 to greater than 6 hours where 0 to 1 hour was the reference group. The probability of mortality increased from 24.6% to 33.1% (P <0.001) [10]. However, critics stated that, owing to a lack of information on antibiotic appropriateness and focus control, this study was limited [1].
Table 3

Comparison of studies investigating antibiotic treatment in patients with sepsis

Parameter

Kumar et al . [ [4]] Crit Care Med (2006)

Ferrer et al . [ [10] Crit Care Med (2014)

Puskarich et al . [ [11]] Crit Care Med (2011)

Bloos et al . [ [12]] Crit Care (2014)

Hranjec et al . [ [13]] Lancet Infect Dis (2012)

Study design

Retrospective multicenter cohort study

Retrospective analysis of prospective collected dataset multicenter

Prospective preplanned analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

Prospective multicenter cohort study

Prospective quasi-experimental, before-and-after observational study single center

Setting

ICU septic shock

ICU mixed

ED septic shock

ICU

ICU-acquired infection

     

Aggressive

Conservative

Patients

2,731

17,993

291

1,011

247

237

Age, years

63

NR

62 (IQR 50–73)

69

NR

NR

Gender, male

54%

NR

53%

63%

NR

NR

APACHE score

26 ± 9

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

SAPS II

NR

NR

42 (IQR 30–55)

48 (IQR 37–60)

NR

NR

SOFA score

NR

NR

6 (IQR 4–9)

10 (IQR 8–12)

NR

NR

MEDS score

NR

NR

11 (IQR 8–14)

NR

NR

NR

Septic shock

2,731 (100%)

11,558 (64.2%)

291 (100%)

NR

38.5%

46.4%

Positive BC

34.2%

NR

100 (34.4%)

317 (48.8%)

NR

NR

Nosocomial

58.1%

12.2%

NR

56.2%

NR

NR

Median time to shock recognition

NR

NR

89 (IQR 48–180)

NR

NR

NR

Overall mortality

56.2%

31.3%

55 (18.9%)

41.4%

99 (40.1%)

50 (21.1%)

Mortality for BC-positive septic shock

NR

NR

26/100 (26.0%)

NR

NR

NR

Mortality for BC-negative septic shock

NR

NR

29/191 (15.2%)

NR

NR

NR

Infection site

      

Pneumonia

1,016 (37.2%)

8,487 (47.2%)

99 (34.0%)

351 (34.9%)

75 (20%)

93 (39%)

UTI

293 (10.7%)

4,757 (26.4%)

71 (24.4%)

122 (12.1%)

33 (13%)

36 (15%)

Intra-abdominal

801 (29.3%)

3,505 (19.5%)

49 (16.8%)

366 (36.3%)

31 (13%)

22 (9%)

Skin and soft tissue

197 (7.2%)

1,133 (6.3%)

23 (7.9%)

NR

NR

NR

Intravascular catheter

100 (3.7%)

661 (3.7%)

11 (3.8%)

NR

14 (6%)

8 (3%)

Surgical wounds

31 (1.1%)

815 (4.5%)

7 (2.4%)

NR

19 (8%)

21 (9%)

Endocarditis

NR

187 (1.0%)

4 (1.4%)

NR

NR

NR

CNSI (e.g., meningitis)

20 (0.7%)

277 (15%)

3 (1.0%)

NR

NR

NR

Septic arthritis

21 (0.8%)

NR

2 (0.7%)

NR

NR

NR

SDI

58 (2.1%)

NR

1 (0.3%)

NR

NR

NR

Ear, nose, throat

NR

NR

1 (0.3%)

NR

NR

NR

Toxic shock syndrome

NR

NR

1 (0.3%)

NR

NR

NR

Unknown

120 (4.4%)

NR

40 (13.8%)

50 (5%)

49 (20%)

46 (19%)

Two or more sources

NR

NR

21 (7.2%)

NR

NR

NR

Mediastinitis

15 (0.5%)

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Other

59 (2.1%)

1,980 (11.0%)

NR

105 (10.4%)

26 (11%)

11 (5%)

Bone

NR

232 (1.3%)

NR

NR

NR

NR

Device

NR

219 (1.2%)

NR

NR

NR

NR

Bone/soft tissue

NR

NR

NR

72 (7.1%)

NR

NR

Upper airway

NR

NR

NR

83 (8.2%)

NR

NR

APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; BC, blood culture; CNSI, central nervous system infection; ED, emergency department; IQR, interquartile range; MEDS, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis; NR, not reported; SAPS II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SDI, systemically disseminated infection; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; UTI, urinary tract infection.

In contrast, Puskarich and colleagues [11] reported results from a large prospective study of emergency department patients with septic shock, which failed to demonstrate an association between timing of antibiotic administration from emergency department triage and hospital mortality. A delay in antibiotics until after shock recognition, as compared with before, was associated with increased mortality; however, if antibiotics are administered after shock recognition, there is no increase in mortality with hourly delays. These findings were in contrast to those from Kumar and colleagues [4] and Ferrer and colleagues [10]. The differences may be explained by a higher severity of illness in the other two studies. For example, Kumar and colleagues [4] investigated ICU patients with septic shock with an overall mortality of 56% in comparison with the emergency department patients in the study by Puskarich and colleagues [11] with 19%. With respect to these findings, the focus on the observed patient cohort seems to be essential.

In a prospective observational multicenter cohort study in 44 German ICUs including 1,011 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, Bloos and colleagues [12] did not find a linear association between timing of antibiotic therapy and 28-day mortality. However, regardless of timing, 28-day mortality rate was lower in patients with adequate antibiotic therapy than in those with non-adequate antibiotic therapy (30% versus 41%, P <0.001). Bloos and colleagues stated that, owing to differences in the related patient populations, they were not able to confirm the findings of Kumar and colleagues [4].

Given these findings, the concept of early empiric antibiotic therapy has recently been challenged. More and more, the underlying and treated patient population has come into focus.

Escalating versus de-escalating strategy

With respect to the previously reported investigations, Hranjec and colleagues [13] presented data from a 2-year, quasi-experimental before-and-after observational study of hemodynamically stable patients admitted to a surgical ICU. In the first year, patients suspected of having an infection (n =101, aggressive approach, de-escalating strategy) had blood cultures and antimicrobial therapy was started. In the second year, patients suspected of having an infection (n =100, conservative approach, escalating strategy) had an antimicrobial therapy only after objective findings confirmed an infection. The conservative approach was associated with lower all-cause mortality: (13/100) 13% versus (27/101) 27%, P =0.015. The odds ratio for the risk of mortality in the aggressive approach group was 2.5 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.0) in comparison with the conservative group. In this investigation, waiting for objective data to diagnose infection before treatment with antimicrobial agents for suspected infection does not worsen the mortality.

Conclusions

Early broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is necessary within the ‘golden hour’ in septic shock and, as a milestone, reduces mortality. However, the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents may be associated with induction of resistance among common pathogens and therefore may be a sticking point. In septic patients without sepsis-associated hypotension, diagnostic measure may be beneficial before an antibiotic therapy starts. New research is urgently needed concerning different strategies that would balance early administration of antibiotics against the potential harmful effects to patients and resistance. New research strategies have to test a de-escalating strategy with restriction of specific broad-spectrum antibiotics in the initial therapy to the most critically ill patients and patients with suspicion of multidrug-resistant pathogens, against an escalating strategy in less critically ill patients. Moreover, further studies are needed to distinguish between more and less critically ill patients, to differentiate patients’ backgrounds, and to determine indicators for patients who profit from an escalating or de-escalating strategy.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Emergency Department, University Hospital of Leipzig
(2)
Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg
(3)
Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Hospital of Medical University Hannover

References

  1. Van Zanten AR: The golden hour of antibiotic administration in severe sepsis: avoid a false start striving for gold. Crit Care Med. 2014, 42: 1931-1932. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000363.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Angus DC, van der Poll T: Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013, 369: 840-851. 10.1056/NEJMra1208623.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K, Kleinpell RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR, Rubenfeld GD, Webb S, Beale RJ, Vincent JL, Moreno R: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guideline for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39: 165-228. 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, Gurka D, Kumar A, Cheang M: Duration of hypotension prior to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1589-1596. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Suarez D, Palencia E, Levy MM, Arenzana A, Pérez XL, Sirvent JM: Effectiveness of treatments for severe sepsis: a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009, 180: 861-866. 10.1164/rccm.200812-1912OC.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Barie PS, Hydo LJ, Shou J, Larone DH, Eachempati SR: Influence of antibiotic therapy on mortality of critical illness caused or complicated by infection. Surg Infect. 2005, 6: 41-54. 10.1089/sur.2005.6.41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Castellanos-Ortega A, Suberviola B, García-Astudillo LA, Holanda MS, Ortiz F, Llorca J, Delgado-Rodríguez M: Impact of the surviving sepsis protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients: results of a three-year follow-up quasiexperimental study. Crit Care Med. 2010, 38: 1036-1043. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d455b6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Pinder M, Bellomo R, Lipman J: Pharmacological principles of antibiotic prescription in critically ill patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002, 30: 134-144.Google Scholar
  9. Paul M, Shani V, Muchtar E, Kariv G, Robenshtok E, Leibovici L: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010, 54: 4851-4863. 10.1128/AAC.00627-10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP, Artigas A, Schorr C, Levy MM: Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014, 42: 1749-1755. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000330.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Puskarich MA, Trzeciak S, Shapiro NI, Arnold RC, Horton JM, Studnek JR, Kline JA, Jones AE: Association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality from septic shock in patients treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol. Crit Care Med. 2011, 39: 2066-2071. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31821e87ab.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloos F, Thomas-Rüddel D, Rüddel H, Engel C, Schwarzkopf D, Marshall JC, Harbarth S, Simon P, Riessen R, Keh D, Dey K, Weiß M, Toussaint S, Schädler D, Weyland A, Ragaller M, Schwarzkopf K, Eiche J, Kuhnle G, Hoyer H, Hartog C, Kaisers U, Reinhart K: Impact of compliance with infection management guidelines on outcome in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational multi-center study. Crit Care. 2014, 18: R42-10.1186/cc13755.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hranjec T, Rosenberger LH, Swenson B, Metzger R, Flohr TR, Politano AD, Riccio LM, Popovsky KA, Sawyer RG: Aggressive versus conservative initiation of antimicrobial treatment in critically ill surgical patients with suspected intensive-care-unit-acquired infection: a quasi-experimental, before and after observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012, 12: 774-780. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70151-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Bernhard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. The licensee has exclusive rights to distribute this article, in any medium, for 12 months following its publication. After this time, the article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. 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.