ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Impact of Appropriate Empirical Antibiotic Treatment on the Clinical Response of Septic Patients in Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Observational Study.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empirical antibiotic therapy for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage-associated pneumonia: an ICU-based single-centered retrospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Microbiological Performance and Potential Clinical Impact of New Rapid Molecular Assays for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Ten-Year Evaluation of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) According to Initial Empiric Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis Using Real-World Data.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The appropriate antibiotic treatment of patients with bacterial sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains a challenge. Considering that current international guidelines recommend 7 days of antibiotic therapy as sufficient for most severe infections, our primary outcome was a comparison of clinical response to initial empirical therapy on day 7 and mortality between two groups of septic patients-with appropriate (AEAT) and inappropriate (IEAT) empirical antibiotic therapy according to the in vitro sensitivity of bacteria detected in a blood culture (BC). Adult patients admitted to the ICU between 2020 and 2023, who were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 in association with a suspected or documented infection, were selected for the study. Of the 418 patients, 149 (35.6%) died within 7 days. Although the AEAT group had a lower mortality rate (30.3% vs. 34.2%) and better clinical improvement (52.8% vs. 47.4%) on day 7 after starting empirical antibiotic therapy, there was no significant difference. A causative organism was isolated from BCs in 30% of septic patients, with gram-negative bacteria (GNB) predominating in 60% of cases, and multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) bacteria predominantly detected in the BCs of the IEAT group. Although the AEAT group had slightly worse clinical characteristics at the onset of sepsis than the IEAT group, the AEAT group showed faster improvement on days 7 and 14 of sepsis. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, the AEAT group was associated with better clinical response at day 7 after sepsis onset and lower mortality, but without a significant difference. Comorbidities and the type of bacterial pathogen should also be taken into account as they can also contribute to the prediction of the final outcome. These results demonstrate the importance of daily assessment of clinical factors to more accurately predict the clinical outcome of a septic patient.
Indexed as
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.