Scholarlink

Background <p>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.</p> Objectives <p>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.</p> Methods <p>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.</p> Results <p>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.</p> Conclusion <p>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Source control in bloodstream infections in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or requiring ICU admission: a scoping review with recommendations for standardizing research

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月14日

查看全文
  • Alexis Tabah,
  • Jan De Waele,
  • Nathalie Ssi Yan Kai,
  • Abdullah Tarik Aslan,
  • Niccolò Buetti,
  • Jean-François Timsit,
  • Emma Ballard,
  • Lars Eriksson,
  • Kevin B. Laupland,
  • Jeffrey Lipman

摘要

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.