Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis

[Specialty-specific knowledge as prerequisite for effective treatment of critically ill patients]

Since the last meeting of the German Medical Association in May 2024, there has been a discussion in Germany about the shortening of primary specialty training and a transfer of the contents of additional supra-specialty training to the existing primary specialty training. This also affects intensive care medicine, with the prospect of creating a subspecialty for subspecialties in intensive care medicine (e.g., a specialty in surgical intensive care medicine). We consider the associated reduction of general specialty-specific contents to be inappropriate for several reasons. Knowledge of the specialty-specific trigger factors (foci) of a critical illness (organ dysfunction) as well as knowledge of the respective trigger factor-specific symptoms, diagnostics and pathways for initiating a causal treatment, are decisive for the prognosis. Recent evidence suggests that in the case of septic foci a time span between making the diagnosis and treatment of the focus should not exceed ca. 6h in order to avoid a worsening of the prognosis. To ensure that the time between symptom onset and effective treatment of the causal factors is not too long, an in-depth expertise in the primary specialty is required throughout the process. This expertise is independent of training in intensive care medicine and can only be acquired through adequate training in the specialty, followed by additional training in intensive care medicine. Expertise in the primary specialty is a prerequisite for the effective treatment of critically ill patients. Maintaining the training specific to the primary specialty and the associated acquisition of specific knowledge in the respective specialty also enables a wider deployment of specialists in clinical practice and a more economical use of diagnostic and therapeutic resources. The additional training in intensive care medicine (supraspecialty) should not be at the expense of content specific to the primary specialty and must remain accessible to all surgical specialties in the field of surgery in the next revision of the training regulations. Due to the unavoidable extent, the additional training in intensive care medicine can itself only be provided on a full-time basis.

Impact of Multiplex PCR on Diagnosis of Bacterial and Fungal Infections and Choice of Appropriate Antimicrobial Therapy

Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has significantly impacted the field of infectious disease diagnostics, offering rapid and precise identification of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Unlike traditional culture methods, which may take days to yield results, multiplex PCR provides diagnostic insights within hours, enabling faster, targeted antimicrobial therapy and reducing the delay in treating critical infections like sepsis. The technique's high sensitivity and broad pathogen coverage make it ideal for both single and polymicrobial infections, improving outcomes across respiratory, bloodstream, and bacterial/fungal infections. However, multiplex PCR is not without challenges; initial high costs and the need for specialized training can limit its adoption, especially in low-resource settings. This review discusses the clinical advantages and limitations of multiplex PCR, highlighting its influence on diagnostic accuracy, antimicrobial stewardship, and the global fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Furthermore, recent innovations in multiplex PCR, such as digital PCR and portable devices, are explored as potential tools for expanding access to rapid diagnostics worldwide.

In-person, virtual visiting and telephone calls in Australia and New Zealand intensive care units: A point prevalence multicentre study mapping daytime and nighttime interactions

BACKGROUND

Family presence, in-person and via virtual visiting (video calls) and the telephone, is an integral part of patient- and family-centred critical care. Previous studies focussed on visiting policies and their effects. Data mapping the frequency and timing of these interactions are not available.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of in-person visiting and the use of telephone or video conferencing in Australia and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN

A point prevalence survey was conducted to map visiting policies, hourly family presence at the bedside, telephone or video calls, and reasons for each interaction.

SETTING

The research was conducted in a 24-h study period in October 2020, corresponding to the end of the 2nd COVID-19 pandemic wave in 40 Australia and New Zealand ICUs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At the time of survey, 77% of ICUs had restrictions to visiting, median (interquartile range [IQR]) time of 9 (2; 24) hours with permitted visiting per day, a mean of 8 hours less than before the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 532 patients, a median (IQR) of 13 (6; 25) patients per ICU. Two patients had COVID-19. Over 24 h, 65% of patients had at least one in-person visit, median (IQR) of 1 (0; 3) hours with visitors. Telephone calls were received for 52% patients, median (IQR) of 1 (0; 2) calls. Video calls were received for 6% of the patients. In-person visits peaked between 10:00 and 12:00, with a second smaller peak between 16:00 and 17:00. Visiting continued through the evening, and 2% of the patients had visitors overnight. Telephone calls peaked at 10:00, continued through the day and evening, with few calls received overnight. In-person visits were predominantly motivated by family interactions (81%) and telephone calls by clinical updates (51%) and family interactions (47%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a low COVID-19 prevalence period, Australia and New Zealand ICUs had partially reopened to visitors. Most visits happened during the day and evening but persisted overnight. ICU resourcing and visiting policies should take these data into account to facilitate family presence at the bedside, virtual visiting, and obtaining clinical updates via telephone.

High risk of short-term mortality and postoperative complications in patients with generalized peritonitis undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery-a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Secondary generalized peritonitis is a potentially life-threatening condition. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between secondary generalized peritonitis and short-term mortality and postoperative complications in patients undergoing major abdominal emergency surgery.

METHODS

The study included patients with the age ≥ 18 years undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery in a University Hospital from 2017 to 2019 after the introduction of a perioperative bundle care program. The primary outcome measures were short-term mortality, defined as death within 30 and 90 days after surgery and postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for 30- and 90-days mortality and 30-days postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 591 patients were included, of whom 21% (124/591) had generalized peritonitis. The overall 30 day-mortality rate was 12.5% (74/591). Patients with generalized peritonitis had a significantly higher 30-day mortality rate than patients with non-generalized peritonitis 18.5% (23/124) vs. 10.9% (51/467), P = 0.033. Generalized peritonitis was an independent risk factor for 30- and 90- days mortality. There was a significantly higher rate of admission to ICU for patients with generalized peritonitis 39.5% (49/124) vs. 12.6% (59/467), P < 0.001. Patients with generalized peritonitis had significantly higher rates of surgical and non-surgical complication compared to patients with non-generalized peritonitis 87.1% (108/124) vs. 65.7% (307/467), P < 0.001. Generalized peritonitis was an independent risk factor of 30 days postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

In a population undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery treated in a perioperative optimization protocol, generalized peritonitis was an independent risk factor for both 30- and 90-days mortality and postoperative complications.

Emergency critical care: closing the gap between onset of critical illness and intensive care unit admission

Critical illness is an exquisitely time-sensitive condition and follows a disease continuum, which always starts before admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), in the majority of cases even before hospital admission. Reflecting the common practice in many healthcare systems that critical care is mainly provided in the confined areas of an ICU, any delay in ICU admission of critically ill patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, if appropriate critical care interventions are provided before ICU admission, this association is not observed. Emergency critical care refers to critical care provided outside of the ICU. It encompasses the delivery of critical care interventions to and monitoring of patients at the place and time closest to the onset of critical illness as well as during transfer to the ICU. Thus, emergency critical care covers the most time-sensitive phase of critical illness and constitutes one missing link in the chain of survival of the critically ill patient. Emergency critical care is delivered whenever and wherever critical illness occurs such as in the pre-hospital setting, before and during inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients, in the emergency department, in the operating theatres, and on hospital wards. By closing the management gap between onset of critical illness and ICU admission, emergency critical care improves patient safety and can avoid early deaths, reverse mild-to-moderate critical illness, avoid ICU admission, attenuate the severity of organ dysfunction, shorten ICU length of stay, and reduce short- and long-term mortality of critically ill patients. Future research is needed to identify effective models to implement emergency critical care systems in different healthcare systems.

Intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in immunocompromised intensive care unit patients: Disease expression, microbial aetiology, and clinical outcomes

We compared epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) between immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised ICU patients and identified risk factors for mortality. We performed a secondary analysis on the "AbSeS" database, a prospective, observational study with IAI patients from 309 ICUs in 42 countries. Immunocompromised status was defined as either neutropenia or prolonged corticosteroids use, chemotherapy or radiotherapy in the past year, bone marrow or solid organ transplantation, congenital immunodeficiency, or immunosuppressive drugs use. Mortality was defined as ICU mortality at any time or 28-day mortality for those discharged earlier. Associations with mortality were assessed by logistic regression. The cohort included 2589 patients of which 239 immunocompromised (9.2 %), most with secondary peritonitis. Among immunocompromised patients, biliary tract infections were less frequent, typhlitis more frequent, and IAIs were more frequently healthcare-associated or early-onset hospital-acquired compared with immunocompetent patients. No difference existed in grade of anatomical disruption, disease severity, organ failure, pathogens, and resistance patterns. Septic shock was significantly more frequent in the immunocompromised population. Mortality was similar in both groups (31.1% vs. 28.9 %; p = 0.468). Immunocompromise was not a risk factor for mortality (OR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.66-1.43). Independent risk factors for mortality among immunocompromised patients included septic shock at presentation (OR 6.64, 95 % CI 1.27-55.72), and unsuccessful source control with persistent inflammation (OR 5.48, 95 % CI 2.29-12.57). In immunocompromised ICU patients with IAI, short-term mortality was similar to immunocompetent patients, despite the former presented more frequently with septic shock, and septic shock and persistent inflammation after source control were independent risk factors for death.

Sepsis phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes: are they ready for bedside care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis.

SUMMARY

Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.

Postoperative Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Secondary Peritonitis in a Referral Hospital in Eastern Venezuela

Background Secondary peritonitis (SP) arises from direct contamination of the peritoneum by spillage from the gastrointestinal or urogenital tracts. Objective This research aimed to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients with SP undergoing surgical management and to study potential factors associated with morbidity and mortality in a reference hospital in Eastern Venezuela. Methodology A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on patients aged 18 to 80 undergoing surgical treatment for SP at "Dr. Luis Razetti" University Hospital in Barcelona, Anzoátegui state, Venezuela, between January and December 2022. We calculated odds ratios to assess mortality risks based on the presence of postoperative complications. Results Analysis of 168 adult patients revealed a predominantly male population (n=110, 65.5%) with a mean age of 35.63 years (SD=14.34). Generalized peritonitis was observed in 126 cases (75%), primarily originating from the appendix (n=117, 69.6%). Postoperative complications occurred in 18 patients (10.7%); sepsis represented the most common associated complication (n=10, 43.5%). Patients with secondary peritonitis associated with acute appendicitis had a lower mortality rate (p=0.042). Additionally, laparotomy was associated with higher frequencies of complications (p=0.001) and mortality (p=0.025), while open appendectomy showed lower frequencies of complications (p=0.002) and mortality (p=0.035). Notably, patients experiencing postoperative complications had a significantly elevated risk of mortality (OR=98, 95% confidence interval = 21.74 - 441.69). Conclusion The most common source of SP was appendicular. Patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy for the management of SP had a higher frequency of complications and mortality, whereas those undergoing open appendectomy had lower rates of complications and mortality.

Management of Sepsis in the First 24 Hours: Bundles of Care and Individualized Approach

Early diagnosis and prompt management are essential to enhance the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. Over the past two decades, evidence-based guidelines have guided appropriate treatment and recommended the implementation of a bundle strategy to deliver fundamental treatments within the initial hours of care. Shortly after its introduction, the implementation of a bundle strategy has led to a substantial decrease in mortality rates across various health care settings. The primary advantage of these bundles is their universality, making them applicable to all patients with sepsis. However, this same quality also represents their primary disadvantage as it fails to account for the significant heterogeneity within the septic patient population. Recently, the individualization of treatments included in the bundle has been suggested as a potential strategy for further improving the prognosis of patients with sepsis. New strategies for the early identification of microorganisms and their resistance patterns, advanced knowledge of antibiotic kinetics in critically ill patients, more conservative fluid therapy in specific patient populations, and early use of alternative vasopressors to catecholamines, as well as tailored source control based on patient conditions and site of infection, are potential approaches to personalize initial care for specific subgroups of patients. These innovative methodologies have the potential to improve the management of septic shock. However, their implementation in clinical practice should be guided by solid evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that future research evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

Importance of timely and adequate source control in sepsis and septic shock

Source control is defined as the physical measures undertaken to eliminate the source of infection and control ongoing contamination, as well as restore anatomy and function at the site of infection. It is a key component of the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock and one of the main determinants of the outcome of infections that require source control. While not all infections may require source control, it should be considered in every patient presenting with sepsis; it is applicable and necessary in numerous infections, not only those occurring in the abdominal cavity. Although the biological rationale is clear, several aspects of source control remain under debate. The timing of source control may impact outcome; early source control is particularly relevant for patients with abdominal infections or necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, as well as for those with more severe disease. Percutaneous procedures are increasingly used for source control; nevertheless, surgery-tailored to the patient and infection-remains a valid option for source control. For outcome optimization, adequate source control is more important than the strategy used. It should be acknowledged that source control interventions may often fail, posing a challenge in this setting. Thus, an individualized, multidisciplinary approach tailored to the infection and patient is preferable.

Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the Italian council for the optimization of antimicrobial use

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospital settings, particularly if poorly managed. The cornerstones of effective IAIs management include early diagnosis, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and early physiologic stabilization using intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents in critically ill patients. Adequate empiric antimicrobial therapy in patients with IAIs is of paramount importance because inappropriate antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor outcomes. Optimizing antimicrobial prescriptions improves treatment effectiveness, increases patients' safety, and minimizes the risk of opportunistic infections (such as Clostridioides difficile) and antimicrobial resistance selection. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms has caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially regarding Gram-negative bacteria. The Multidisciplinary and Intersociety Italian Council for the Optimization of Antimicrobial Use promoted a consensus conference on the antimicrobial management of IAIs, including emergency medicine specialists, radiologists, surgeons, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, clinical pharmacologists, hospital pharmacists, microbiologists and public health specialists. Relevant clinical questions were constructed by the Organizational Committee in order to investigate the topic. The expert panel produced recommendation statements based on the best scientific evidence from PubMed and EMBASE Library and experts' opinions. The statements were planned and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence. On November 10, 2023, the experts met in Mestre (Italy) to debate the statements. After the approval of the statements, the expert panel met via email and virtual meetings to prepare and revise the definitive document. This document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference and comprises three sections. The first section focuses on the general principles of diagnosis and treatment of IAIs. The second section provides twenty-three evidence-based recommendations for the antimicrobial therapy of IAIs. The third section presents eight clinical diagnostic-therapeutic pathways for the most common IAIs. The document has been endorsed by the Italian Society of Surgery.

Intra-abdominal infections survival guide: a position statement by the Global Alliance For Infections In Surgery

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospital settings worldwide. The cornerstones of IAI management include rapid, accurate diagnostics; timely, adequate source control; appropriate, short-duration antimicrobial therapy administered according to the principles of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and antimicrobial stewardship; and hemodynamic and organ functional support with intravenous fluid and adjunctive vasopressor agents for critical illness (sepsis/organ dysfunction or septic shock after correction of hypovolemia). In patients with IAIs, a personalized approach is crucial to optimize outcomes and should be based on multiple aspects that require careful clinical assessment. The anatomic extent of infection, the presumed pathogens involved and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance, the origin and extent of the infection, the patient's clinical condition, and the host's immune status should be assessed continuously to optimize the management of patients with complicated IAIs.

Antimicrobial De-Escalation in Critically Ill Patients

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is defined as the discontinuation of one or more antimicrobials in empirical therapy, or the replacement of a broad-spectrum antimicrobial with a narrower-spectrum antimicrobial. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available literature on the effectiveness and safety of ADE in critically ill patients, with a focus on special conditions such as anti-fungal therapy and high-risk categories. Although it is widely considered a safe strategy for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), to date, there has been no assessment of the effect of de-escalation on the development of resistance. Conversely, some authors suggest that prolonged antibiotic treatment may be a side effect of de-escalation, especially in high-risk categories such as neutropenic critically ill patients and intra-abdominal infections (IAIs). Moreover, microbiological documentation is crucial for increasing ADE rates in critically ill patients with infections, and efforts should be focused on exploring new diagnostic tools to accelerate pathogen identification. For these reasons, ADE can be safely used in patients with infections, as confirmed by high-quality and reliable microbiological samplings, although further studies are warranted to clarify its applicability in selected populations.

Sepsis Stewardship: The Puzzle of Antibiotic Therapy in the Context of Individualization of Decision Making

The main recent change observed in the field of critical patient infection has been universal awareness of the need to make better use of antimicrobials, especially for the most serious cases, beyond the application of simple and effective formulas or rigid protocols. The increase in resistant microorganisms, the quantitative increase in major surgeries and interventional procedures in the highest risk patients, and the appearance of a significant number of new antibiotics in recent years (some very specifically directed against certain mechanisms of resistance and others with a broader spectrum of applications) have led us to shift our questions from "what to deal with" to "how to treat". There has been controversy about how best to approach antibiotic treatment of complex cases of sepsis. The individualized and adjusted dosage, the moment of its administration, the objective, and the selection of the regimen are pointed out as factors of special relevance in a critically ill patient where the frequency of resistant microorganisms, especially among the Enterobacterales group, and the emergence of multiple and diverse antibiotic treatment alternatives have made the appropriate choice of antibiotic treatment more complex, requiring a constant updating of knowledge and the creation of multidisciplinary teams to confront new infections that are difficult to treat. In this article, we have reviewed the phenomenon of the emergence of resistance to antibacterials and we have tried to share some of the ideas, such as stewardship, sparing carbapenems, and organizational, microbiological, pharmacological, and knowledge tools, that we have considered most useful and effective for individualized decision making that takes into account the current context of multidrug resistance. The greatest challenge, therefore, of decision making in this context lies in determining an effective, optimal, and balanced empirical antibiotic treatment.

[Guideline-conform treatment of sepsis]

The time to administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics and (secondarily) to the initiation of hemodynamic stabilization are the most important factors influencing survival of patients with sepsis and septic shock; however, the basic prerequisite for the initiation of an adequate treatment is that a suspected diagnosis of sepsis is made first. Therefore, the treatment of sepsis, even before it has begun, is an interdisciplinary and interprofessional task. This article provides an overview of the current state of the art in sepsis treatment and points towards new evidence that has the potential to change guideline recommendations in the coming years. In summary, the following points are critical: (1) sepsis must be diagnosed as soon as possible and the implementation of a source control intervention (in case of a controllable source) has to be implemented as soon as (logistically) possible. (2) In general, intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics should be given within the first hour after diagnosis if sepsis or septic shock is suspected. In organ dysfunction without shock, where sepsis is a possible but unlikely cause, the results of focused advanced diagnostics should be awaited before a decision to give broad-spectrum antibiotics is made. If it is not clear within 3 h whether sepsis is the cause, broad-spectrum antibiotics should be given when in doubt. Administer beta-lactam antibiotics as a prolonged (or if therapeutic drug monitoring is available, continuous) infusion after an initial loading dose. (3) Combination treatment with two agents for one pathogen group should remain the exception (e.g. multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens). (4) In the case of doubt, the duration of anti-infective treatment should rather be shorter than longer. Procalcitonin can support the clinical decision to stop (not to start!) antibiotic treatment! (5) For fluid treatment, if hypoperfusion is present, the first (approximately) 2L (30 ml/kg BW) of crystalloid solution is usually safe and indicated. After that, the rule is: less is more! Any further fluid administration should be carefully weighed up with the help of dynamic parameters, the patient's clinical condition and echo(cardio)graphy.

Epidemiology and risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with pancreatic infection

Background

The AbSeS-classification defines specific phenotypes of patients with intra-abdominal infection based on the (1) setting of infection onset (community-acquired, early onset, or late-onset hospital-acquired), (2) presence or absence of either localized or diffuse peritonitis, and (3) severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, or septic shock). This classification system demonstrated reliable risk stratification in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with intra-abdominal infection. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of ICU patients with pancreatic infection and assess the relationship between the components of the AbSeS-classification and mortality.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of an international observational study ("AbSeS") investigating ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection. Only patients with pancreatic infection were included in this analysis (n=165). Mortality was defined as ICU mortality within 28 days of observation for patients discharged earlier from the ICU. Relationships with mortality were assessed using logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

The overall mortality was 35.2% (n=58). The independent risk factors for mortality included older age (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.1 P=0.023), localized peritonitis (OR=4.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 13.9 P=0.011), and persistent signs of inflammation at day 7 (OR=9.5, 95% CI: 3.8 to 23.9, P<0.001) or after the implementation of additional source control interventions within the first week (OR=4.0, 95% CI: 1.3 to 12.2, P=0.013). Gram-negative bacteria were most frequently isolated (n=58, 49.2%) without clinically relevant differences in microbial etiology between survivors and non-survivors.

Conclusions

In pancreatic infection, a challenging source/damage control and ongoing pancreatic inflammation appear to be the strongest contributors to an unfavorable short-term outcome. In this limited series, essentials of the AbSeS-classification, such as the setting of infection onset, diffuse peritonitis, and severity of disease expression, were not associated with an increased mortality risk.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03270345.

Optimized Treatment of Nosocomial Peritonitis

This comprehensive review aims to provide a practical guide for intensivists, focusing on enhancing patient care associated with nosocomial peritonitis (NP). It explores the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of NP, a significant contributor to the mortality of surgical patients worldwide. NP is, per definition, a hospital-acquired condition and a consequence of gastrointestinal surgery or a complication of other diseases. NP, one of the most prevalent causes of sepsis in surgical Intensive Care Units (ICUs), is often associated with multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria and high mortality rates. Early clinical suspicion and the utilization of various diagnostic tools like biomarkers and imaging are of great importance. Microbiology is often complex, with antimicrobial resistance escalating in many parts of the world. Fungal peritonitis and its risk factors, diagnostic hurdles, and effective management approaches are particularly relevant in patients with NP. Contemporary antimicrobial strategies for treating NP are discussed, including drug resistance challenges and empirical antibiotic regimens. The importance of source control in intra-abdominal infection management, including surgical and non-surgical interventions, is also emphasized. A deeper exploration into the role of open abdomen treatment as a potential option for selected patients is proposed, indicating an area for further investigation. This review underscores the need for more research to advance the best treatment strategies for NP.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for antifungal therapy optimisation in the treatment of intra-abdominal candidiasis

Intra-abdominal candidiasis (IAC) is one of the most common of invasive candidiasis observed in critically ill patients. It is associated with high mortality, with up to 50% of deaths attributable to delays in source control and/or the introduction of antifungal therapy. Currently, there is no comprehensive guidance on optimising antifungal dosing in the treatment of IAC among the critically ill. However, this form of abdominal sepsis presents specific pharmacokinetic (PK) alterations and pharmacodynamic (PD) challenges that risk suboptimal antifungal exposure at the site of infection in critically ill patients. This review aims to describe the peculiarities of IAC from both PK and PD perspectives, advocating an individualized approach to antifungal dosing. Additionally, all current PK/PD studies relating to IAC are reviewed in terms of strength and limitations, so that core elements for the basis of future research can be provided.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

The roles of tissue-resident macrophages in sepsis-associated organ dysfunction

Sepsis, a syndrome caused by a dysregulated host response to infection and characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction, particularly septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction (SAOD), is a medical emergency associated with high morbidity, high mortality, and long-term sequelae. Tissue-resident macrophages (TRMs) are a subpopulation of macrophages derived primarily from yolk sac progenitors and fetal liver during embryogenesis, located primarily in non-lymphoid tissues in adulthood, capable of local self-renewal independent of hematopoiesis, and developmentally and functionally restricted to the non-lymphoid organs in which they reside. TRMs are the first line of defense against life-threatening conditions such as sepsis, tumor growth, traumatic-associated organ injury, and surgical-associated injury. In the context of sepsis, TRMs can be considered as angels or demons involved in organ injury. Our proposal is that sepsis, septic shock, and SAOD can be attenuated by modulating TRMs in different organs. This review summarizes the pathophysiological mechanisms of TRMs in different organs or tissues involved in the development and progression of sepsis.

Ten golden rules for optimal antibiotic use in hospital settings: the WARNING call to action

Antibiotics are recognized widely for their benefits when used appropriately. However, they are often used inappropriately despite the importance of responsible use within good clinical practice. Effective antibiotic treatment is an essential component of universal healthcare, and it is a global responsibility to ensure appropriate use. Currently, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to develop new antibiotics due to scientific, regulatory, and financial barriers, further emphasizing the importance of appropriate antibiotic use. To address this issue, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery established an international multidisciplinary task force of 295 experts from 115 countries with different backgrounds. The task force developed a position statement called WARNING (Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance National/International Network Group) aimed at raising awareness of antimicrobial resistance and improving antibiotic prescribing practices worldwide. The statement outlined is 10 axioms, or "golden rules," for the appropriate use of antibiotics that all healthcare workers should consistently adhere in clinical practice.

Septic shock in obstetrics: guidelines of the All-Russian public organization “Federation of Anesthesiologists and Reanimatologists”

The article reflects the main provisions of the clinical guidelines on septic shock in obstetrics, approved by the All-Russian public organization “Federation of Anesthesiologists-Resuscitators” in 2022. The relevance of the problem is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates from sepsis and septic shock in obstetrics. The main issues of etiology, pathogenesis, clinical picture, methods of laboratory and instrumental diagnostics, features of using the qSOFA, SOFA, MOEWS, SOS, MEWC, IMEWS scales for sepsis verification are consistently presented. The article presents the starting intensive therapy (the first 6–12 hours) of the treatment of septic shock in obstetrics, taking into account the characteristics of the pregnant woman's body. The strategy of prescribing vasopressors (norepinephrine, phenylephrine, epinephrine), inotropic drugs (dobutamine) is described, antibiotics and optimal antibiotic therapy regimens, features of infusion and adjuvant therapy are presented. The issues of surgical treatment of the focus of infection and indications for hysterectomy, as well as the organization of medical care and rehabilitation of patients with sepsis and septic shock were discussed. The basic principles of prevention of sepsis and septic shock in obstetrics are described. The criteria for the quality of medical care for patients with septic shock and the algorithms of doctor's actions in the diagnosis and intensive care of patients with septic shock in obstetrics are presented.

Impact of secondary sepsis on mortality in adult intensive care unit patients

RATIONALE

Septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) suffer from immune dysregulation, potentially leading to a secondary sepsis episode. This study aims to (i) assess the secondary sepsis rate, (ii) compare the second with the first episodes in terms of demographics, clinical and laboratory characteristics, and outcomes, and iii) evaluate the outcome of secondary sepsis.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study (2014-2017) was conducted in a Greek ICU, including consecutive cases of adult patients admitted to the ICU for at least 48 h with a principal admission diagnosis of sepsis and stayed for at least 48 h. We searched for a secondary episode of sepsis following the primary-one. We performed survival analyses with Cox proportional hazard, Fine-Gray, and multistate models.

RESULTS

In this study, 121 patients that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included. The secondary sepsis group included 28 (23.1 %) patients, with episode onset, median (interquartile range), 9.5 (7.7-16.2) days after ICU admission, who had less frequently had a medical admission diagnosis, a microbiologically confirmed first episode, and the C-reactive protein was lower. The overall ICU mortality of the cohort was 44.6 %. The group that developed secondary sepsis had higher mortality, but significance was lost in Cox regression [Hazard ratio (95 % CI) 0.59(0.31-1.16)]. However, after multistate modeling adjustment, the attributable mortality was estimated at 43.9 % (95 %CI ± 14.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Secondary sepsis was evident in a quarter of the study participants and may be associated with an increased risk of death.

Antimicrobial Exposure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis-Associated Multi-Organ Dysfunction Requiring Extracorporeal Organ Support: A Narrative Review

Sepsis is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. The pathophysiology of sepsis relies on the maladaptive host response to pathogens that fosters unbalanced organ crosstalk and induces multi-organ dysfunction, whose severity was directly associated with mortality. In septic patients, etiologic interventions aiming to reduce the pathogen load via appropriate antimicrobial therapy and the effective control of the source infection were demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, extracorporeal organ support represents a complementary intervention that may play a role in mitigating life-threatening complications caused by sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction. In this setting, an increasing amount of research raised concerns about the risk of suboptimal antimicrobial exposure in critically ill patients with sepsis, which may be worsened by the concomitant delivery of extracorporeal organ support. Accordingly, several strategies have been implemented to overcome this issue. In this narrative review, we discussed the pharmacokinetic features of antimicrobials and mechanisms that may favor drug removal during renal replacement therapy, coupled plasma filtration and absorption, therapeutic plasma exchange, hemoperfusion, extracorporeal CO₂ removal and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We also provided an overview of evidence-based strategies that may help the physician to safely prescribe effective antimicrobial doses in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction who receive extracorporeal organ support.

Multimodal strategy to counteract vasodilation in septic shock

Early initiation of a multimodal treatment strategy in the management of vasopressors during septic shock has been advocated to reduce delays in restoring adequate organ perfusion and to mitigate side effects associated with the administration of high-dose catecholamines. We provide a review that summarises the pathophysiology of vasodilation, the physiologic response to the vascular response, and the different drugs used in this situation, focusing on the need to combine early different vasopressors. Fluid loading being insufficient for counteracting vasoplegia, norepinephrine is usually the first-line vasopressor used to restore hemodynamics. Norepinephrine sparing is discussed in further detail through the concomitant use of adrenergic, vasopressinergic, and renin-angiotensin systems and the optimisation of endothelial reactivity with methylene blue. A blueprint for the construction of new studies is outlined to address the question of vasopressor selection and timing in septic shock.