Septic shock in the intensive care unit of a multidisciplinary hospital
https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-6-51-56
Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the prevalence, etiology, and outcomes of intensive care in patients with septic shock in the ICU of a multidisciplinary hospital.
Materials and methods. A single-center, retrospective, cohort study was conducted involving 398 patients with septic shock who were hospitalized in the ICU over a one-year period. Diagnosis of septic shock, as well as a complex of intensive care, were carried out according to the criteria proposed by the recommendations of the Surviving sepsis campaign (2021). Antibacterial therapy was prescribed based on the Guidelines «Diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy of infections caused by multidrug-resistant strains of microorganisms» (2022)
Results. The proportion of patients with septic shock was 7.4% of the entire population hospitalized in the ICU. The hospital mortality rate was 25%. The dominant loci of infection in patients with septic shock were the abdominal cavity (33%) and lungs (32.4%). The microbial landscape was dominated by gram-negative flora (66%), among which in 35% of cases, Klebsiella pneumoniae was characterized by resistance to the antibacterial drugs used. Combined antibacterial therapy was received by 84% of patients.
About the Authors
L. L. PlotkinRussian Federation
Plotkin Leonard L., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Leading Intensivist
70, Vorovskogo str., Chelyabinsk, 454048
V. A. Artamonov
Russian Federation
Artamonov Vladimir A., Anesthesiologist and Intensivist
70, Vorovskogo str., Chelyabinsk, 454048
References
1. Beloborodov V. B., Goloshchapov O. V., Gusarov V. G. et al. Methodical recommendations of the Russian non-profit public organization “Association of Anesthesiologists-Resuscitators”, the Interregional public organization “Alliance of Clinical Chemotherapists and Microbiologists”, the Interregional Association for Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (MAKMAH), public organization “Russian Sepsis Forum” “Diagnostics and antimicrobial therapy of infections caused by multidrug-resistant strains of microorganisms” (updated 2022). Bulletin of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, 2022, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 84–114. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2022-19-2-84-114.
2. Rudnov V. A. Septic shock: current state of the problem. Infections and antimicrobial therapy, 2003, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 68–75. (In Russ.).
3. Rudnov V. A., Belsky D. V., Dekhnich A. V. et al. Research group of RIORIT. Prevalence of infections in intensive care units of Russia. Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2011, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 294–303. (In Russ.).
4. Charlson M. E., Pompei P., Ales K. L. et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis, 1987, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 373–383.
5. Evans L., Rhodes A., Alhazzani W. et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med, 2021, vol. 47, pp. 1181–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y.
6. Vincent J.-L., de Mendonsa A., Cantraine T. et al. Use SOFA scores to asses the incichece of organ dysfunction / failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on’ sepsis problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit. Care Med, 1998, vol. 26, pp. 1793–1800.
7. Vincent J.-L. Highlighting the huge global burden of sepsi. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, 2020, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2020.03.004.
8. Vincent J. L., Sakr Y., Singer M. et al. Prevalence and outcomes of infection among patients in Intensive Care Units in 2017. JAMA, 2020, vol. 323, no. 15, pp. 1478–1487. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2717.
Review
For citations:
Plotkin L.L., Artamonov V.A. Septic shock in the intensive care unit of a multidisciplinary hospital. Messenger of ANESTHESIOLOGY AND RESUSCITATION. 2024;21(6):51-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-6-51-56