In my patient with sepsis, is administration of proper antibiotics within an hour compared to 1-3 hours associated with better outcome?

The weight of the evidence based on observational studies suggests that the earlier the antibiotics are administered even within the first 3 hrs of the diagnosis of sepsis,  the better the patient outcome.

A 2017 study analyzing data from 37 studies (primarily observational) involving ~20,000 patients with severe sepsis and/or shock found a 10% increase in hospital mortality for every 1 hr delay in initiation of antibiotic therapy1. Two multicenter studies (1 in Pennsylvania2 and another in California3) and a New York State data base study involving patients with severe sepsis or septic shock4 similarly reported decreased survival with each 1- hr delay in antibiotic therapy. Another study of patients with severe sepsis found that each hour delay in first antibiotic dose administration was associated with an 8% increased risk of progression to shock5.

Despite the emphasis on the timing of the first dose of antibiotics, let’s not forget that the second dose of antibiotics should also be given on time in sepsis; a >25% delay is associated with increased mortality, length of stay and requirement for mechanical ventilation6.

So, yes, antibiotics should be given within 3 hours of diagnosis of sepsis, but within an hour followed by a timely second dose is even better!

Final Pearl: Did you know that sepsis is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US and contributes to 1 in every 2 to 3 hospital deaths7?

 

References

  1. Kalil AC, Johnson DW, Lisco SJ, et al. Early goal-directed therapy for sepsis: a novel solution for discordant survival outcomes in clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2017;45:607-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28067711
  2. Seymour CW, Kahn JM, Martin-Gill, et al. Delays from first medical contact to antibiotic administration for sepsis. Crit Care Med 2017;45:759-65. https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=28234754
  3. Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, et al. Th timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit care Med 2017; 196;858-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28345952
  4. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2235-44. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058
  5. Whiles BB, Deis AS, Simpson SQ. Increased time to initial antimicrobial administration is associated with progression to septic shock in severe sepsis patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:623-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28169944
  6. Leisman D, Huang V, Zhou Q, et al. Delayed second dose antibiotics for patients admitted from the emergency department with sepsis: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes. Crit Care Med 2017;45:956-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28328652
  7. https://www.ecri.org/components/HRC/Documents/Sepsis%20at%20a%20Glance.pdf

 

If you enjoyed this pearl, sign up to get “Fresh Pearls from Oceans of Knowledge!” with each new post!

In my patient with sepsis, is administration of proper antibiotics within an hour compared to 1-3 hours associated with better outcome?

Are two sets of blood cultures adequate for evaluation of bacteremia in my febrile patient?

For great majority of patients, more than 2 sets of blood cultures is not likely to significantly improve the yield of detecting bacteremia. 

Although a 2004 report suggested that 2 sets of blood cultures over 24 h period had a sensitivity of only 80% for bacteremia, several other studies have found much higher sensitivities, ranging from ~90%- 99% 2-3. When broken down by organism, sensitivity of 2 sets of blood cultures may be highest for Staphylococcus aureus (97%), followed by E. coli (91%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (90%) 2.  The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines recommend paired blood culture sets (each set with 2 bottles, 10 ml of blood in each) to detect about 90-95% of patients with documented bacteremia, and 3 sets for 95-99% detection rate 4.

It seems prudent to strike a balance between drawing more than 2 sets of blood cultures—with its attendant risk of picking up contaminants— and what may be a definite but small incremental increase in the rate of detection of true bacteremia.

Whatever you do,  please don’t order only 1 set of blood cultures! Aside from its generally low yield, when positive it may be difficult to distinguish contaminants from true invaders.

 

References

  1. Cockerill FR, Reed GS, Hughes JG, et al. Clinical comparison of BACTEC 9240 Plus Aerobic/F resin bottles and the Isolator aerobic cultures. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1724-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9163464
  2. Lee A, Mirrett S, Reller LB, et al. Detection of bloodstream infections in adults: how many cultures are needed? J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:3546-48. http://jcm.asm.org/content/45/11/3546
  3. Towns ML, Jarvis WR, Hsueh PR. Guidelines on blood cultures. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2010;43:347-49. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688297
  4. Weinstein MP, Reller LB, Murphy JR, et al. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. I. Laboratory and eipidemiologic observations. Rev Infect Dis 1982;5:35-53. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6828811
Are two sets of blood cultures adequate for evaluation of bacteremia in my febrile patient?

In my critically ill patient with infection, is capillary refill time greater than 2 seconds indicative of septic shock?

The data on the performance of capillary refill time (CRT) in adults is quite limited and what’s available does not suggest that the commonly cited 2 seconds cutoff is useful in assessing peripheral perfusion in critically ill adults1,2.

For example, a large study involving 1000 healthy adults reported that 45% of participants had a CRT > 2 seconds3.  Age also affects CRT with its 95 percentile upper limits reaching 4.5 seconds among healthy adults >60 y old3

Among patients with septic shock, a baseline median CRT of 5 seconds has been reported.  Values <5.0 seconds within 6 hours of treatment of septic shock has also been highly associated with successful resuscitation even before normalization of lactate levels4.

For these reasons, if CRT is used as a measure of peripheral perfusion in critically ill adults, a cut off of 5 seconds, not 2 seconds, may be more appropriate. But just like many other diagnostic tests, CRT should never be interpreted in isolation from other clinical parameters. 

References

  1. Lima A, Bakker J. Clinical Assessment of peripheral circulation. Critical Care 2015:21: 226-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827585  
  2. Lewin J, Maconochie I. Capillary refill time in adults. Emerg Med J 2008;25:325-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499809
  3. Anderson B, Kelly AM, Kerr D, et al. Impact of patient and environmental factors on capillary refill time in adults. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:62-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082783
  4. Hernandez G, Pedreros C, Veas E, et al. Evolution of peripheral vs metabolic perfusion parameters during septic shock resuscitation. A clinical-physiologic study. J Crit Care 2012;27:283-288.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798706
In my critically ill patient with infection, is capillary refill time greater than 2 seconds indicative of septic shock?

Should male patients with suspected urinary tract infection routinely undergo a prostate exam?

Yes! That’s because any urinary tract infection (UTI) in men has the potential for prostatic involvement1 —-as high as 83% by one report2.  

To make the matters more confusing, patients with acute bacterial prostatitis (ABP) often present with symptoms just like those of UTI such as urinary frequency, dysuria, malaise, fever, and myalgias3.  In the elderly, atypical presentation is not uncommon (eg, confusion, incontinence, fall)4.  Under these circumstances, bacteriuria and pyuria may also be related to ABP and the prostate exam should be an important part of your evaluation.

Although the sensitivity of prostate tenderness on digital rectal exam varies widely for ABP (9%-100%), a painful exam should raise suspicion for ABP, and by itself may be an independent predictor for clinical and bacteriologic failure of therapy1. Along with tenderness, fluctuance of prostate, particularly in the setting of voiding difficulties and longer duration of symptoms, may also suggest the presence of prostatic abscess5,6

But be gentle when performing a prostate exam and don’t massage it because you could potentially cause bacteremia and worsening of sepsis!1,7

References

  1. Etienne M, Chavanet P, Sibert L, et al. Acute bacterial prostatitis: heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria and management. Retrospective multicentric analysis of 371 patients diagnosed with acute prostatitis. BMC Infectious Diseases 2008;8:12. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1471-2334-8-12?site=bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com
  2. Ulleryd P, Zackrisson B, Aus G, et al. Prostatic involvement in men with febrile urinary tract infection as measured by serum prostate-specific antigen and transrectal ultrasonography. BJU Int 1999;84:470-4. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00164.x/pdf
  3. Krieger JN, Nyberg L, Nickel JC. NIH consensus definition and classification. JAMA 1999;282:236-37. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1030245
  4. Harper M, Fowlis. Management of urinary tract infections in men. Trends in Urology Gynaecology & Sexual Health. January/February 2007. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.8/pdf
  5. Lee DS, Choe HS, Kim HY, et al. Acute bacterial prostatitis and abscess formation. BMC Urology 2016;16:38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936164/
  6. Oliveira P, Andrade JA, Porto HC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of prostatic abscess. International Braz J Urol 2003;29: 30-34. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ibju/v29n1/v29n1a06.pdf
  7. Lipsky BA, Byren I, Hoey CT. Treatment of bacterial prostatitis. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50:1641-52. https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/cid/50/12/10.1086/652861/2/50-12-1641.pdf?Expires=1501276981&Signature=X5SLG2Pq5IpbsjDigES70~Nk6g5onrPwhrFClIAFIvdFiEyCsc1~2aWN9LpR~56DlGqxjmZuIX33JtOn-tURGG0puEwnulZDEDXFjFt6fXucSgtKMDOmGXSKoMvgtPZe86nduJMNDuaifEZXITpDXjSLXAJXVamJ-bbSUMEqSysnCCMxZx~5MaAb6WEikqG5Vi~Xnp58fXABG7BJS~ZFRn2~BTlVEEvmIIDDaY5cJjgUcN7SNOhs0rOS71WzlNtlXSqnXffZEdFSJ~iDcbyRL-wh-9OZqZ2fwojdk8Be89DsKJg8rIh8dlLc5O7v92yL~cZ6iieiP8xTGOU-21tVeA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Should male patients with suspected urinary tract infection routinely undergo a prostate exam?

What is the mechanism of anemia of chronic disease in my patient with rheumatoid arthritis?

Anemia of chronic disease (ACD)—or more aptly “anemia of inflammation”— is the second most common cause of anemia after iron deficiency and is associated with numerous acute or chronic conditions (eg, infection, cancer, autoimmune diseases, chronic organ rejection, and chronic kidney disease)1.

The hallmark of ACD is disturbances in iron homeostasis which result in increased uptake and retention of iron within cells of the reticuloendothelial system, with its attendant diversion of iron from the circulation and reduced availability for erythropoiesis1. More specifically, pathogens, cancer cells, or even the body’s own immune system stimulate CD3+ T cells and macrophages to produce a variety of cytokines, (eg, interferon-ɤ, TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-10) which in turn increase iron storage within macrophages through induction of expression of ferritin, transferrin and divalent metal transporter 1.

In addition to increased macrophage storage of iron, ACD is also associated with IL-6-induced synthesis of hepcidin, a peptide secreted by the liver that decreases iron absorption from the duodenum and its release from macrophages2. TNF-α and interferon-ɤ also contribute to ACD by inhibiting the production of erythropoietin by the kidney.  Finally, the life span of RBCs is adversely impacted in AKD due to their reduced deformability and increased adherence to the endothelium in inflammatory states3.

Of interest, it is often postulated that by limiting access to iron through inflammation, the body hinders the growth of pathogens by depriving them of this important mineral2.

 

References

  1. Weiss, G and Goodnough, L. Anemia of chronic disease. N Engl J Med 2005; 352; 1011-23. http://www.med.unc.edu/medclerk/medselect/files/anemia2.pdf
  2. D’Angelo, G. Role of hepcidin in the pathophysiology and diagnosis of anemia. Blood Res 2013; 48(1): 10-15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3624997/pdf/br-48-10.pdf                                                                                                                                  
  3. Straat M, van Bruggen R, de Korte D, et al. Red blood cell clearance in inflammation. Transfus Med Hemother 2012;39:353-60. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678279/pdf/tmh-0039-0353.pdf

 

Contributed by Amir Hossein Ameri, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School

                     

What is the mechanism of anemia of chronic disease in my patient with rheumatoid arthritis?

My patient with cirrhosis has been admitted to the hospital several times this year with bacterial infections. How does cirrhosis increase susceptibility to infections?

Bacterial infections are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis, affecting about 30% of such patients either at admission or during their hospitalization, with an attendant risk of mortality that is twice that of individuals without cirrhosis1.

Two major mechanisms may account for the observed immune dysfunction in cirrhosis: 1. Compromise of the immune surveillance function of the liver itself through damage of the reticulo-endothelial system (RES) and reduced synthesis of innate immunity proteins and pattern recognition receptors (PRRs); and 2. Dysfunctions of circulating and intestinal population of immune cells2.

Damage to the RES in cirrhosis leads to portal-system shunting, loss/damage of Kupffer cells (specialized hepatic macrophages) and sinusoidal capillarization, all hindering blood-borne pathogen clearance. Cirrhosis is also associated with a defect in hepatic protein synthesis, including complement components, decreased PRRs and acute phase reactants (eg C-reactive protein), which may in turn lead to the impairment of the innate immunity and bacterial opsonization.

Cirrhosis can also cause reduction in the number and function of neutrophils (eg, decreased phagocytosis and chemotaxis), B, T, and NK lymphocytes, and decreased in bacterial phagocytosis by monocytes. In addition, damage to the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (eg Peyer’s patches and mesenteric lymph nodes) may facilitate bacterial translocation.

References

  1. Pieri G, Agarwal B, Burroughs AK. C-reactive protein and bacterial infections in cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:113-120. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982625/pdf/AnnGastroenterol-27-113.pdf
  2. Albillos A, Lario M, Alvarez-Mon M. Cirrhosis-associated immune dysfunction: distinctive features and clinical relevance. J Hepatol 2014;61:1385-1396. http://www.journal-of-hepatology.eu/article/S0168-8278(14)00549-2/pdf

 

My patient with cirrhosis has been admitted to the hospital several times this year with bacterial infections. How does cirrhosis increase susceptibility to infections?

My patient with cirrhosis and suspected infection has a normal serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Does cirrhosis affect CRP response to infection?

 

CRP is primarily synthesized by the liver mainly as a response to IL-6 production in inflammatory states1.  Lower CRP production may then be expected in cirrhotic patients with significant infections and several studies support this view2

In a particularly convincing study involving E. coli-infected patients with bacteremia, the median CRP level in cirrhotic patients was about 40% that of non-cirrhotic patients (62 mg/L vs 146 mg/L)3.  In another study involving bacteremic patients with or without liver dysfunction, median CRP level was about 60% that of  patients with preserved liver function (81 mg/L vs 139 mg/L)4.  Some investigators have reported a cut-off CRP value of 9.2 mg/L as a possible screening test for bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis with a sensitivity and specificity of 88% (AUROC 0.93)5.

Collectively, these data suggest that although CRP response may be diminished in patients with advanced liver disease and acute infection, its synthesis is still maintained.

References

  1. Pieri G, Agarwal B, Burroughs AK. C-reactive protein and bacterial infection in cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:113-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982625/pdf/AnnGastroenterol-27-113.pdf
  2. Ha YE, Kang C-I, Joo E-J, et al. Usefulness of C-reactive protein for evaluating clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with bacteremia. Korean J Intern Med 2011;26:195-200. http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3110852/pdf/kjim-26-195.pdf
  3. Park WB1, Lee KD, Lee CS et al. Production of C-reactive protein in Escherichia coli-infected patients with liver dysfunction due to liver cirrhosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005 Apr;51(4):227-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15808312
  4. Mackenzie I, Woodhouse J. C-reactive protein concentrations during bacteraemia: a comparison between patients with and without liver dysfunction. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:1344-51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16799774
  5. Papp M, Vitalis Z, Altorjay I, et al. Acute phase proteins in the diagnosis and prediction of cirrhosis associated bacterial infection. Liver Int 2011;603-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22145664

 

My patient with cirrhosis and suspected infection has a normal serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Does cirrhosis affect CRP response to infection?