Urosepsis: from the intensive care viewpoint

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.07.014Get rights and content

Abstract

A recent survey conducted by the Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet) revealed that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75 000 inhabitants (110 per 100 000) and sepsis occurs in 79 000 inhabitants (116 per 100 000) in Germany annually. The prevalence of urosepsis in this survey was 7%. Early diagnosis of sepsis prior to the onset of clinical deterioration is of particular interest because this would increase the possibility of early and specific treatment, which in turn is the major determining factor of mortality in septic patients. Treatment of urosepsis consists of source control, early antimicrobial therapy as well as supportive and adjunctive therapy. For supportive therapy, adequate volume loading is the most important step in the treatment of patients with urosepsis in order to restore and maintain oxygen transport and tissue oxygenation. Therefore, supportive treatment should focus on adequate volume resuscitation and appropriate use of inotropes/vasopressors. The PROWESS study is the first investigation demonstrating the decrease in mortality in patients with sepsis following administration of activated protein C (APC). Thus, administration of APC to patients with two-organ failure or an APACHE II score ≥25 within the first 24 h after the first sepsis-induced organ failure is a part of adjunctive therapy. Additionally, current data support low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in patients with vasopressor-dependent severe septic shock. Time to initiation of therapy is crucial for surviving sepsis. Implementing new medical evidence in this context into daily clinical intensive care remains a major hurdle.

Introduction

A recent survey conducted by the publicly funded Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet) revealed that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75 000 inhabitants (110 per 100 000) and sepsis occurs in 79 000 inhabitants (116 per 100 000) in Germany annually [1]. In this prospective, observational, cross-sectional, 1-day prevalence study, 3877 patients were screened in Germany in a representative random sample of 310 hospitals with 454 Intensive Care Units (ICUs) out of a total of 1380 German hospitals. Among the 1348 patients with infections, 415 (30.8%) had severe sepsis or septic shock according to the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) Consensus Conference. The prevalence of urosepsis was 7%. Urosepsis is defined as sepsis caused by urinary tract infection (UTI). Because of the increasing prevalence of sepsis, this entity will be seen more frequently in medical practice and outpatient units. Immediate identification and treatment of the septic focus is crucial; 60 000 of 154 000 septic patients die each year owing to sepsis [1]. Thus, sepsis is the third most common cause of death in Germany; more people die only due to coronary heart disease and acute myocardial infarction. In the last 3–4 years, substantial progress in sepsis therapy has been made. The gap between implementing the new medical evidence into daily clinical practice on the ICU remains as a major hurdle in this context. Early diagnosis of sepsis prior to the onset of clinical deterioration is of particular interest, as this would increase the possibility for early and specific treatment. Similar to acute myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke, the time to initiation of therapy appears to be crucial and the major determining factor for surviving sepsis.

Section snippets

Diagnosis

Clinical parameters such as the criteria of the ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference of 1992 are still the primary indicators for diagnosing sepsis [1]. These parameters are neither sensitive nor specific. To confirm the diagnosis of sepsis and to distinguish between sepsis-induced systemic inflammation and inflammation caused by non-infectious causes, measurement of more specific parameters is required. At present, procalcitonin (PCT) is one of the biomarkers in sepsis with greatest specificity and

Treatment of sepsis

Treatment of urosepsis consists of source control, early antimicrobial therapy as well as supportive and adjunctive therapy [6]. Thus, the management approach is not different for urosepsis compared with septic shock from other sources. Nevertheless, it is very relevant to know whether the interventional sepsis studies included a reasonable number of patients with urosepsis.

Source control

Primary source control is of utmost importance for the survival of septic patients. Initially, surgical intervention (e.g. in urosepsis, percutaneous nephrostomy, or evacuation or drainage of an abscess) needs to be performed, whenever necessary. Furthermore, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy remains essential within septic source control. In a large retrospective cohort study with more than 2700 patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, Kumar et al. [7] showed the crucial importance of

Monitoring

In the initial treatment of septic patients, blood pressure, heart rate, urine output and central venous pressure (CVP) guide resuscitation. Despite normalisation of these variables, global tissue hypoxia may still persist when the cardiorespiratory system is unable to cover metabolic demand adequately [8]. Sustained tissue hypoxia is one of the most important co-factors in the development of multiorgan failure [9].

Mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) monitoring is used as a surrogate for the

Corticosteroid therapy

Adrenal insufficiency has been identified as playing a role in the pathophysiology of sepsis. Therefore, the use of corticosteroids has been investigated for many years. Use of high-dose steroids in sepsis is not justified as it is associated with fatal outcome [30]. Currently, data support low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock, because in one randomised controlled French multicentre study the use of low-dose hydrocortisone substitution in septic

Conclusions

Appropriate and early diagnosis of sepsis is important to enable commencement of treatment without delay. The management approach is not different for urosepsis compared with septic shock from other sources. The importance of time to improve the outcome of sepsis cannot be overemphasised. According to Kumar et al.'s data [7], we have 1 h to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics. We have 6 h to stabilise haemodynamics according to early goal-directed therapy. We have 24 h to apply adjunctive

References (40)

  • K. Reinhart

    Oxygen transport and tissue oxygenation in sepsis and septic shock

  • J.C. Marshall

    Inflammation, coagulopathy, and the pathogenesis of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

    Crit Care Med

    (2001)
  • K. Reinhart et al.

    The value of venous oximetry

    Curr Opin Crit Care

    (2005)
  • J.D. Sandham et al.

    A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients

    N Engl J Med

    (2003)
  • E. Rivers et al.

    Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock

    N Engl J Med

    (2001)
  • R.P. Dellinger et al.

    Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock

    Crit Care Med

    (2004)
  • W.R. Hasibeder

    Fluid resuscitation during capillary leakage: does the type of fluid make a difference

    Intensive Care Med

    (2002)
  • R.S. Bisonni et al.

    Colloids versus crystalloids in fluid resuscitation: an analysis of randomized controlled trials

    J Fam Pract

    (1991)
  • G. Schierhout et al.

    Fluid resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised trials

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • P.T. Choi et al.

    Crystalloids vs. colloids in fluid resuscitation: a systematic review

    Crit Care Med

    (1999)
  • Cited by (8)

    • Faecal Escherichia coli isolates show potential to cause endogenous infection in patients admitted to the ICU in a tertiary care hospital

      2015, New Microbes and New Infections
      Citation Excerpt :

      Such bloodstream infections with extraintestinal E. coli are frequently associated with patients who have undergone major surgeries; who were admitted to hospitals for long durations; or who had a peripheral or urinary catheter [1]. E. coli in the bloodstream can trigger vigorous host inflammatory response, leading to sepsis associated with high morbidity and mortality [5]. A phylogenetic analysis indicates discrete origins of a diverse natural populations of the pathogenic E. coli[6] that can be classified into major phylogenetic groups A, B1, B2 and D [7].

    • Urinary sepsis: Current aspects

      2015, Revista Brasileira de Medicina
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text