Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29383395›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2019

Bacterial sepsis : Diagnostics and calculated antibiotic therapy.

D C Richter, A Heininger, T Brenner, M Hochreiter, M Bernhard, J Briegel, S Dubler, B Grabein, A Hecker, W A Kruger and 10 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. [Evidence-based interdisciplinary treatment of abdominal sepsis].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

D C RichterDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. daniel1.richter@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
A HeiningerZentrum für Infektiologie, Sektion für Krankenhaus- und Umwelthygiene, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
T BrennerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
M HochreiterDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
M BernhardZentrale Notaufnahme, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
J BriegelKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, München, Germany.
S DublerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
B GrabeinStabsstelle "Klinische Mikrobiologie und Krankenhaushygiene", Klinikum der Universität München, München, Germany.
A HeckerKlinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax‑, Transplantations- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
W A KrugerKlinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Gesundheitsverbund Landkreis Konstanz, Klinikum Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
K MayerApotheke, Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
M W PletzZentrum für Infektionsmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
D StorzingerApotheke, Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
N PinderApotheke, Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
T Hoppe-TichyZentrum für Infektiologie, Sektion für Krankenhaus- und Umwelthygiene, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
S WeitererDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
S ZimmermannZentrum für Infektiologie, Sektion für Krankenhaus- und Umwelthygiene, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
A BrinkmannKlinik für Anästhesie, operative Intensivmedizin und spezielle Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Heidenheim, Heidenheim, Germany.
M A WeigandDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
C LichtensternDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock is still unacceptably high. An effective calculated antibiotic treatment within 1 h of recognition of sepsis is an important target of sepsis treatment. Delays lead to an increase in mortality; therefore, structured treatment concepts form a rational foundation, taking relevant diagnostic and treatment steps into consideration. In addition to the assumed infection and individual risks of each patient, local resistance patterns and specific problem pathogens must be taken into account during the selection of anti-infective treatment. Many pathophysiologic alterations influence the pharmacokinetics (PK) of antibiotics during sepsis. The principle of standard dosing should be abandoned and replaced by an individual treatment approach with stronger weighting of the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) index of the substance groups. Although this is not yet the clinical standard, prolonged (or continuous) infusion of β‑lactam antibiotics and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can help to achieve defined PK targets. Prolonged infusion is sufficient without TDM, but for continuous infusion, TDM is generally necessary. A further argument for individual PK/PD-oriented antibiotic approaches is the increasing number of infections due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens in the intensive care unit. For effective treatment, antibiotic stewardship teams (ABS teams) are becoming more established. Interdisciplinary cooperation of the ABS team with infectious disease (ID) specialists, microbiologists, and clinical pharmacists leads not only to rational administration of antibiotics, but also has a positive influence on treatment outcome. The gold standards for pathogen identification are still culture-based detection and microbiologic resistance testing for the various antibiotic groups. Despite the rapid investigation time, novel polymerase chain reaction(PCR)-based procedures for pathogen identification and resistance determination are currently only an adjunct to routine sepsis diagnostics, due to the limited number of studies, high costs, and limited availability. In complicated septic courses with multiple anti-infective therapies or recurrent sepsis, PCR-based procedures can be used in addition to treatment monitoring and diagnostics. Novel antibiotics represent potent alternatives in the treatment of MDR infections. Due to the often defined spectrum of pathogens and the practically (still) absent resistance, they are suitable for targeted treatment of severe MDR infections (therapy escalation). (Contribution available free of charge by "Free Access" [ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00101-017-0396-z ].).

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipBacteremiabeta-LactamsBiomarkersDrug MonitoringHumansIntensive Care UnitsShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamsBiomarkersDrug resistance, multiple, bacterialLactamsPatient care bundlesProlonged and continuous β‑lactam infusionTherapeutic drug monitoring

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.