Intensive care medicine · 2025
Source control in bloodstream infections in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or requiring ICU admission: a scoping review with recommendations for standardizing research.
СтатьяScoping ReviewПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tabah Alexis, De Waele Jan, Ssi Yan Kai Nathalie, Aslan Abdullah Tarik, Buetti Niccolò, Timsit Jean-François, Ballard Emma, Eriksson Lars, Laupland Kevin B, Lipman Jeffrey
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSI) account for 15% of intensive care unit (ICU) infections, often causing sepsis with mortality rates up to 50%. Source control (SC), encompassing interventions to reduce bacterial or fungal load and prevent infection spread, is a critical yet under-investigated component of management.
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review examines SC definitions, interventions, timing, adequacy, and outcomes in BSI literature in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or ICU admission, and offers a proposal for standardized reporting.
METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies on adult BSI addressing SC in populations with ≥ 50% ICU admission, ≥ 75% sepsis, or ≥ 25% septic shock, extracted and reported data following established guidance.
RESULTS: From 2193 abstracts, 77 studies were included. SC was a primary objective in 21%, with others reporting it alongside other objectives. Candidemia (47%) and catheter removal (60%) studies were predominant, with 34% evaluating catheter removal regardless of BSI source. SC definitions varied from no definition (8%), minimal (7%), concise (17%), comprehensive (9%) definitions and catheter removal (60%). Forty-seven % reported proportions receiving SC for the entire cohort rather than those requiring SC. Timing was reported by 68%, with inconsistent definitions. SC adequacy was assessed by 3%. SC improved outcomes in 65%, with no reported harm.
CONCLUSION: SC research in severe BSI is limited by inconsistent definitions, poor SC efficacy assessments, and overrepresentation of catheter-source BSI and candidemia. Standardized reporting is essential to enhance evidence quality and optimize BSI management in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review examines SC definitions, interventions, timing, adequacy, and outcomes in BSI literature in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or ICU admission, and offers a proposal for standardized reporting.
METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies on adult BSI addressing SC in populations with ≥ 50% ICU admission, ≥ 75% sepsis, or ≥ 25% septic shock, extracted and reported data following established guidance.
RESULTS: From 2193 abstracts, 77 studies were included. SC was a primary objective in 21%, with others reporting it alongside other objectives. Candidemia (47%) and catheter removal (60%) studies were predominant, with 34% evaluating catheter removal regardless of BSI source. SC definitions varied from no definition (8%), minimal (7%), concise (17%), comprehensive (9%) definitions and catheter removal (60%). Forty-seven % reported proportions receiving SC for the entire cohort rather than those requiring SC. Timing was reported by 68%, with inconsistent definitions. SC adequacy was assessed by 3%. SC improved outcomes in 65%, with no reported harm.
CONCLUSION: SC research in severe BSI is limited by inconsistent definitions, poor SC efficacy assessments, and overrepresentation of catheter-source BSI and candidemia. Standardized reporting is essential to enhance evidence quality and optimize BSI management in critically ill patients.