ArticleCritical care research and practice2016
Determinants of Deescalation Failure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-Escalation of Broad-Spectrum and Last-Resort Antibiotics in Critically Ill Adults with Gram-Negative Infections: A Scoping Review and Evidence-Informed Framework for Tertiary-Care ICUs.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Effect of Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic De-escalation on Critically Ill Patient Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2023Article
- Review
- Early antimicrobial stewardship team intervention on appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy in suspected sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020).Journal of intensive care · 2021Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Antibiotic De-escalation in Critically Ill Children With Sepsis - A Prospective Analytical Study From a Pediatric ICU.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial Treatment Duration in Sepsis and Serious Infections.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020).Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction. Deescalation refers to either discontinuation or a step-down of antimicrobials. Despite strong recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (2012) to deescalate, actual practices can vary. Our objective was to identify variables that are associated with deescalation failure. Methods. In this prospective study of patients with sepsis/septic shock, patients were categorized into 4 groups based on antibiotic administration: no change in antibiotics, deescalation, escalation (where antibiotics were changed to those with a broader spectrum of antimicrobial coverage), or mixed changes (where both escalation to a broader spectrum of coverage and discontinuation of antibiotics were carried out). Results. 395 patients were studied; mean APACHE II score was 24 ± 7.8. Antimicrobial deescalation occurred in 189 (48%) patients; no changes were made in 156 (39%) patients. On multivariate regression analysis, failure to deescalate was significantly predicted by hematologic malignancy OR 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-7.4) p < 0.004, fungal sepsis OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.2-5.8) p = 0.011, multidrug resistance OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.4-6.0) p = 0.003, baseline serum procalcitonin OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.003-1.016) p = 0.002, and SAPS II scores OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.004-1.02) p = 0.006. Conclusions. Current deescalation practices reflect physician reluctance when dealing with complicated, sicker patients or with drug-resistance or fungal sepsis. Integrating an antibiotic stewardship program may increase physician confidence and provide support towards increasing deescalation rates.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.