Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock*

Kumar, Anand MD; Roberts, Daniel MD; Wood, Kenneth E. DO; Light, Bruce MD; Parrillo, Joseph E. MD; Sharma, Satendra MD; Suppes, Robert BSc; Feinstein, Daniel MD; Zanotti, Sergio MD; Taiberg, Leo MD; Gurka, David MD; Kumar, Aseem PhD; Cheang, Mary MSc

doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9
Feature Articles

Objective: To determine the prevalence and impact on mortality of delays in initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy from initial onset of recurrent/persistent hypotension of septic shock.

Design: A retrospective cohort study performed between July 1989 and June 2004.

Setting: Fourteen intensive care units (four medical, four surgical, six mixed medical/surgical) and ten hospitals (four academic, six community) in Canada and the United States.

Patients: Medical records of 2,731 adult patients with septic shock.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and Main Results: The main outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge. Among the 2,154 septic shock patients (78.9% total) who received effective antimicrobial therapy only after the onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension, a strong relationship between the delay in effective antimicrobial initiation and in-hospital mortality was noted (adjusted odds ratio 1.119 [per hour delay], 95% confidence interval 1.103–1.136, p < .0001). Administration of an antimicrobial effective for isolated or suspected pathogens within the first hour of documented hypotension was associated with a survival rate of 79.9%. Each hour of delay in antimicrobial administration over the ensuing 6 hrs was associated with an average decrease in survival of 7.6%. By the second hour after onset of persistent/recurrent hypotension, in-hospital mortality rate was significantly increased relative to receiving therapy within the first hour (odds ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–2.48). In multivariate analysis (including Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and therapeutic variables), time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy was the single strongest predictor of outcome. Median time to effective antimicrobial therapy was 6 hrs (25–75th percentile, 2.0–15.0 hrs).

Conclusions: Effective antimicrobial administration within the first hour of documented hypotension was associated with increased survival to hospital discharge in adult patients with septic shock. Despite a progressive increase in mortality rate with increasing delays, only 50% of septic shock patients received effective antimicrobial therapy within 6 hrs of documented hypotension.

From the Section of Critical Care Medicine, Health Sciences Centre/St. Boniface Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada (AK, DR, BL, SS, RS); Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI (KEW); Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, UMDNJ, Camden, NJ (JEP, SZ); St. Agnes Medical Center, Baltimore, MD (DF); Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL (LT, DG); Laurentian University, Biomolecular Sciences Program and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Sudbury, ON (AK); and Biostatistical Consulting Unit, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB (MC).

Supported, in part, by unrestricted grants from Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Merck, and Astra-Zeneca. Additional support was provided by the Health Sciences Centre Department of Research and Health Sciences Centre Foundation. Companies that provided partial grant support for this project had no role in study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Dr. Kumar has received honoraria for lectures from Eli-Lilly and Co. and Merck and Co. He has also received grant support for this project as noted. Dr. Light is a consultant for Eli-Lilly and Co. Dr. Parrillo has received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline for porcine/human research on sepsis; he also holds grants from Arginox, DeepBreeze, and Minimitter. Dr. Parrillo is also on Advisory Boards for Edwards, GlaxoSmithKline, and OrthoBioTech (Johnson & Johnson). The remaining authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Address requests for reprints to: Anand Kumar, MD, E-mail: akumar61@yahoo.com

Despite the fact that current international guidelines suggest initiation of antimicrobial therapy within an hour of presentation with severe sepsis and septic shock, no clinical studies exist to support this recommendation (1). In reality, initiation of antimicrobial therapy for infections causing critical illness often awaits thorough clinical evaluation, resuscitative measures, initial stabilization, and investigative efforts (2–6).

Relatively few studies have rigorously examined the effect of delays of antimicrobial therapy in critically ill, infected patients (7–17). To the extent that these studies have been done, the delay has most often been timed to admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or the emergency room. No studies have examined treatment delays in relation to defined physiologic variables such as hypotension. We have recently demonstrated that the onset of hypotension is a critical marker of increased mortality in a murine model of Escherichia coli peritonitis/septic shock (18). Based on these findings, a retrospective multiple-center study was undertaken to examine the relationship between the delay in initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy from initial onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension and survival in septic shock.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

A retrospective review of three patient cohorts of adult (≥18 yrs of age) septic shock was performed. The study was approved through the Health Ethics Board of the University of Manitoba and at each individual participating center. A waiver of the requirement for informed consent was obtained under the regulations of each participating site.

In the first cohort, all septic shock cases admitted to the adult ICUs (two medical, two general surgical, five mixed) of all hospitals (two tertiary, five community) in the province of Manitoba, Canada, from May 1999 to June 2004 were identified using a locally developed ICU database in which ICU admission and acquired diagnoses are prospectively encoded by the attending physician and confirmed by specially trained research nurses (19).

In a second, comprehensive cohort, all cases of septic shock occurring between June 1989 and April 1999 at a single adult academic tertiary care institution (one medical and one general surgical) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, were similarly identified using the same database.

In the final cohort, consecutive adult septic shock patients (approximately 150 each from July 1999 to June 2004) at three academic American institutions were identified using a combination of internal ICU registries and/or International Classification of Diseases Revision 9 coding strategies depending on the specific institutions coding practices.

Following initial identification, each potential case was screened to determine whether the case met specific criteria for septic shock as described by the 1991 Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement on Sepsis Definitions (20). All included cases were required to have no other obvious cause of shock.

Data including choice of antimicrobials used and actual time of initial parenteral antimicrobial administration were retrospectively collected using a uniform data extraction template by several trained research nurses or research assistants with medical training (medical students, residents, fellows). All data extractors reviewed ≥100 charts.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Elements.

Clinical infection definitions were adapted from previous recommendations (21, 22) as summarized in the Appendix. To qualify as potential pathogens causing shock, isolates from both local site and/or blood cultures were required to have been obtained within 48 hrs of onset of shock. The time of initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy (i.e., with in vitro activity appropriate to isolated pathogenic organisms or, if a pathogenic organism was not isolated, appropriate for the underlying clinical syndrome) following onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension was determined for all cases. Identification of recurrent/persistent hypotension as described subsequently was inclusive of ambulance, paramedic, or nursing home records. Questionable cases or data elements were reviewed by the principal investigator for adjudication.

A series of predetermined rules were created to assess effectiveness and timing of antimicrobial therapy (e.g., how to determine at what point shock has occurred; how to determine which antimicrobial should be considered critical for implementation of effective antimicrobial therapy in a mixed infection). Notable examples of these rules included that the numerically dominant fungal or Gram-negative isolate was generally considered to have the primary role for mixed flora intraabdominal infections. With semiquantitatively similar organism densities, the most resistant Gram-negative (or fungal organism if present) was considered to be the primary pathogen. Similar rules held for multiple lung isolates although in that case, enterococci were considered to be the primary etiological organism only in the absence of other, more plausible pathogens. In addition, Candida species isolated from lung were considered to be colonizers (unless also present at multiple other sites and/or the patient was immunosuppressed, in which case disseminated infection was diagnosed). Staphylococcus epidermidis was uniformly considered to be incapable of causing septic shock. Other coagulase-negative staphylococci were similarly considered to be unlikely to cause septic shock unless present as a sole isolate in multiple blood cultures in the absence of evidence of endovascular infection.

For culture-negative septic shock, effective therapy was deemed to be initiated when antimicrobials consistent with broadly accepted guidelines for empirical management of the typical pathogens for the clinical syndrome (in the context of host immune/health status, environmental factors, and local flora) were given. For the purposes of this study, effective (empirical) therapy of culture negative infections leading to septic shock was defined by the recommendations enumerated in Table 1 “Clinical approach to initial choice of antimicrobial therapy” in the Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy (34th Ed.) (23).

Table 1

Table 1

For unanticipated scenarios not covered by the predetermined rules, data were reviewed independently by two infectious disease/critical care medicine physicians blinded to outcome. Agreement allowed data entry. Discordant assessments were reviewed by a third similarly trained physician whose decision was determinative. A similar adjudication approach was used for other issues where clinical judgment was required.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Definitions.

Hypotension was defined as a mean blood pressure of <65 mm Hg, a systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg, or a decrease in systolic pressure of 40 mm Hg from the patient's baseline consistent with Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians criteria for septic shock (20). An episode of hypotension was considered to represent the initial onset of septic shock when a) hypotension persisted from onset despite fluid (>2 L of saline or equivalent) administration (persistent hypotension); or b) hypotension was only transiently improved (hypotension resolution for <1 hr) with fluid resuscitation (recurrent hypotension). Hypotension that resolved in the absence of therapy or following administration of <2 L of normal saline (or equivalent) without subsequent clinical deterioration was not considered to represent initial onset of septic shock-related hypotension. Nosocomial infection-related septic shock was defined as septic shock caused by any infection developing >48 hrs after hospital admission. Cases not meeting this definition were considered to be septic shock associated with community-acquired infections. Documented infections were those in which a plausible microbial pathogen was identified from the clinical infection site or blood in the context of a compatible clinical syndrome or in which infection was supported by a definitive radiologic, surgical, or pathologic diagnosis (autopsy or biopsy). All other infections were considered to be suspected. Effective antimicrobial therapy was considered to have been initiated if antimicrobials with in vitro activity appropriate for the isolated pathogen or pathogens (or in the case of culture-negative septic shock, antimicrobial therapy matching accepted national guidelines modified to local flora) were received within 6 hrs of administration of the first new antimicrobial following onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension. Otherwise, ineffective therapy was considered to have been initiated.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis.

The primary outcome variable was survival to hospital discharge inclusive of discharges to chronic health care facilities (nursing homes, etc.). The time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy relative to the first occurrence of recurrent or persistent hypotension was the primary independent variable. Data are expressed as mean ± sd unless otherwise indicated.

Logistic regression modeling was used to examine survival to hospital discharge as a function of time delay to effective antimicrobial administration using interval data. Sensitivity of this delay as a continuous variable was also examined by stratifying over specific subgroups. In addition, a multiple logistic regression model was used to examine the independent impact of a variety of clinical and therapeutic variables (including time to effective antimicrobial initiation) on survival to hospital discharge. These statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.0. Nagelkerke R2 tests to determine the contribution of specific variables to variance in outcome (survival to hospital discharge) were performed using SPSS 13.0.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

In total, 2,731 cases were determined to fit the diagnostic criteria for septic shock. All cohorts were similar in terms of average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score (24), distribution of clinical infections, time to effective antimicrobial therapy following onset of hypotension, and outcome. Therefore, data were combined for analysis. Of the total number, 56 were moribund on admission based on predefined criteria (cardiac arrest or requirement for epinephrine in the field or immediately on arrival to the emergency room). All were included in this analysis.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Demographic and Descriptive Data.

The average age of septic shock patients was 62.7 ± 16.4, with 54.3% males and 45.7% females. Average APACHE II score determined from the most abnormal results within 24 hrs of shock onset was 26.0 ± 8.6. Drotrecogin-alfa (activated) was used in 91 cases (outside of randomized trials), whereas low-dose steroid therapy was used in 657 cases. An indication for source control (either open surgical or percutaneous) existed in 1,068 cases.

Community-acquired infections accounted for 58.1% of cases of septic shock, whereas 41.9% of cases were deemed to represent nosocomial infection. Direct admissions from the emergency room accounted for 44.4% of the total. Table 1 describes the frequency of chronic comorbidities among septic shock patients. Table 2 lists the frequency of clinically defined infection sites. The respiratory system (almost entirely pneumonia) and gastrointestinal/intraabdominal sites together accounted for two thirds of all infections resulting in septic shock.

Table 2

Table 2

Documented infections were present in 77.9% of cases. The remaining 22.1% of cases represented suspected infections without either a plausible bacterial pathogen isolated or definitive radiologic, surgical, autopsy, or biopsy evidence of infection. A plausible microbial pathogen was identified in 70.0% of cases and isolated from the blood in 34.2%. Among the 1,546 patients in whom a plausible pathogen was identified, the breakdown of specific organisms is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Table 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Antimicrobial Therapy and Septic Shock Mortality.

Overall mortality rate was 56.2%. Survival was similar whether the infection was documented or suspected; whether a plausible pathogen was identified or not; and whether bacteremia was present or absent. Of the total of 2,731 patients with septic shock, 19 did not receive effective antimicrobials before death and 558 were on antimicrobial therapy that was either proven (defined pathogen) or adjudicated (undefined pathogen) effective for the infection thought to underlie septic shock before the onset of hypotension. Of the remaining 2,154 patients who received effective antimicrobials only after onset of hypotension, mortality rate was 58.0%.

Over the first 6 hrs after the onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension, each hour of delay in initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy was associated with mean decrease in survival of 7.6% (range 3.6–9.9%; Fig. 1). Survival was 82.7% if effective antimicrobials were administered within 30 mins of initial evidence of hypotension, 77.2% in the second half hour (79.9% aggregate in the first hour), and 42.0% in the sixth hour. The median time to implementation of effective antimicrobial therapy following the first onset of recurrent/persistent hypotension was 6 hrs (25–75% interval, 2.0–15.0 hrs; Fig. 1). Average times were 13.51 ± 0.45 (se) hrs.

Figure 1

Figure 1

On univariate analysis, the delay from initial recurrent or persistent hypotension to administration of effective antimicrobial therapy was a critical determinant of survival to ICU and hospital discharge (each p < .0001 by log rank analysis). By the second hour after onset of persistent/recurrent hypotension, in-hospital mortality rate was significantly increased relative to receiving therapy within the first hour (adjusted odds ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 −2.48; Fig. 2). The odds ratio of death continued to climb with progressive delays to a maximum value of 92.54 (95% confidence interval, 44.92–190.53) with delays >36 hrs after onset of hypotension (Fig. 2). When delay to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy was assessed as a continuous variable, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.119 (per hour delay) (95% confidence interval 1.103–1.136, p < .0001); that is, every hour delay was associated with an approximately 12% decreased probability of survival compared with the previous hour over the entire observation period (Fig. 3).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3

In multivariate analysis with other management variables including effectiveness of initial antimicrobial therapy, choice and magnitude of early fluid resuscitation, single vs. multiple drug class antimicrobial therapy, and choice and rapidity of initiation of initial vasopressor/inotropic support, time to effective antimicrobial therapy was most strongly associated with outcome (p < .0001). This strong association persisted even when nontherapeutic variables predictive of outcome including admission APACHE II score, number of admission organ failures, and clinical infection site were added to the model.

The delay from onset of persistent/recurrent hypotension to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy accounted for 28.1% of the variance in outcome (survival to hospital discharge) in patients with septic shock. In comparison, APACHE II score at ICU admission could explain only 24.6% of the variance. Notably, the volume of fluids infused in the first hour of hypotension (the only one of several fluid resuscitation-associated variables tested in the model to reach significance; p = .038 in the multivariate model) accounted for <2% of the variance in outcome.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the relationship between hospital survival and duration of time between onset of recurrent/persistent hypotension and effective antimicrobial administration held whether the infection was clinically suspected or documented, culture positive or negative, bacteremic or nonbacteremic, community acquired or nosocomial, or Gram-positive, Gram-negative, or fungal (Fig. 3). The relationship also held in all major clinical infections including those involving the respiratory, urinary, gastrointestinal/peritoneal and skin/soft tissue sites (Fig. 3). The effect also held for additional subgroups including those with neutropenia or requiring source control efforts.

The 558 patients who received effective antimicrobial therapy before onset of hypotension (and were therefore not included in the primary analysis) and the 2,154 who received such therapy after onset of hypotension were comparable except for a higher proportion of patients requiring source control (44.8% vs. 37.9% of the total respectively). Survival in this subgroup was slightly higher than the overall group at 52.2%.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

These data suggest that the delay in initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy following the onset of hypotension is a critical therapeutic variable associated with septic shock mortality. Initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy within the first hour following onset of septic shock-related hypotension was associated with 79.9% survival to hospital discharge (Fig. 1). For every additional hour to effective antimicrobial initiation in the first 6 hrs after hypotension onset, survival dropped an average of 7.6%. With effective antimicrobial initiation between the first and second hour after hypotension onset, survival had already dropped to 70.5%. With effective antimicrobial therapy delay to 5–6 hrs after hypotension onset, survival was just 42.0% and by 9–12 hrs 25.4%. The adjusted odds ratio of death was already significantly increased by the second hour after hypotension onset, and the ratio continued to climb with longer delays (Fig. 2).

The study also demonstrates the existence of substantial delays in delivery of effective antimicrobials in patients with septic shock. Among those patients who were not already on effective therapy, the median time to delivery of effective antimicrobial therapy following initial onset of recurrent/persistent hypotension was 6 hrs. Only 14.5% of all patients who had not received effective antimicrobials before shock received them within the first hour of documentation of onset of recurrent or persistent hypotension (Fig. 1). Only 32.5% had received them by 3 hrs after hypotension onset and 51.4% by 6 hrs postonset. Even 12 hrs after the first occurrence of recurrent or sustained hypotension, 29.8% of patients had not received effective antimicrobial therapy.

These findings are novel although not unexpected. A single previous study examined outcome of septic shock in the context of delays in antimicrobial therapy relative to ICU admission (16). Larche and colleagues (16) found that a delay of >2 hrs was associated with increased mortality in a cohort of 88 critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. Several other investigators have shown that delayed antimicrobial therapy is associated with increased mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (7–9, 17), nosocomial pneumonia (11, 12), and bacterial meningitis (10, 13). Similar increases in mortality with increasing delays in initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy have also been documented with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14) and Staphylococcus aureus (15) bacteremia. Meehan et al. (9) showed that delays in initial antimicrobial administration >8 hrs after admission to the emergency room for community-acquired pneumonia were associated with increased mortality rate in a large cohort of Medicare patients. Houck et al. (17) pushed this boundary lower by demonstrating increased mortality rate in Medicare patients with community-acquired pneumonia who were treated with antimicrobials >4 hrs following ICU admission.

This study substantially extends previous investigations. Use of a large cohort of septic shock patients with a high overall mortality rate (56.2%) allows the demonstration of the progressive increase in hospital mortality associated with delay in administration of effective antimicrobial therapy. Delay intervals as short as an hour following onset of septic shock-related hypotension significantly increased hospital mortality rate. In addition, the large number of cases allows the demonstration that this mortality effect applies to major patient subgroups irrespective of the isolation of pathogenic bacteria, presence of bacteremia, clinical infection site, and epidemiologic (nosocomial vs. community-acquired)/etiological considerations (Fig. 3).

The adverse effect of delays of effective antimicrobial initiation on survival is robust in two regards. First, the relationship held in all major subgroups including culture-negative and nonbacteremic patient groups, as indicated in Figure 3. This implies that the processes underlying septic shock are similar across these groups and emphasizes the importance of early initiation of appropriately selected empirical therapy in all subgroups including culture-negative and nonbacteremic cases. Second, the relationship between antimicrobial delay and mortality holds even in multivariate analysis with other therapeutic variables and prognosis predictors such as APACHE score.

It is very unlikely that other covariant factors are responsible for the close association between mortality and time to initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy. Given the relationship between aggressive fluid resuscitation and improved septic shock survival demonstrated by Rivers et al. (25), a link between rapidity of fluid resuscitation and initiation of antimicrobial therapy is possible. Similarly, patients with greater severity of illness might have antimicrobial therapy delayed in order to accommodate resuscitative measures or investigative modalities resulting in a spurious relationship between mortality and antimicrobial initiation delay. Against these possibilities, the time from septic shock related-hypotension to effective antimicrobial initiation continues to be the variable most strongly associated with mortality even when rapidity of fluid resuscitation and APACHE II score are factored into the multivariate analysis.

The finding of a rapid upward inflection in mortality following onset of hypotension is consistent with experimental and clinical data from other shock states. Several experimental animal investigations have suggested a limited window of opportunity for therapy of the underlying injury once shock is present. The classic example of this is Wiggers' (26) hemorrhagic shock model in which resuscitation of animals invariably fails if initiated more than a few hours after the initial insult. We have recently demonstrated a similar rapid inflection in mortality following onset of hypotension in an experimental murine model of E. coli peritonitis/septic shock (18). In the clinical context, a “golden hour” has been described for therapy of hypovolemic shock due to trauma (27), cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction (28), and, most recently, obstructive shock due to massive pulmonary embolus (29). In serious human infections, rapidity of antimicrobial therapy following presentation has been understood to be a critical determinant of outcome for specific conditions including community-acquired pneumonia (7, 9, 14, 17), ventilator-associated pneumonia (11), meningitis (10, 13), bacteremia (14, 15), and septic shock (16). No human studies, however, have directly examined the relationship between hemodynamic responses to infection and outcome. Although early aggressive resuscitation of septic shock has been advocated (25, 30), administration of antimicrobials has often awaited hemodynamic stabilization in clinical practice. Our data strongly suggest that, as with other forms of shock, a “golden hour” during which effective antimicrobial therapy can optimize outcome exists for septic shock.

Current international guidelines recommend initiation of empirical antimicrobial therapy within 1 hr of presentation with severe sepsis or septic shock (1). Until now, no clinical studies have existed to support this position. This study demonstrates that substantial delays in administration of effective antimicrobial therapy of septic shock exist even though rapid initiation of such therapy is closely associated with survival to hospital discharge. Mortality rate is significantly increased if effective antimicrobial therapy is delayed by even 1 hr following onset of septic shock-related hypotension. These data strongly support current international guidelines and suggest that empirical, broad-spectrum antimicrobial administration should be considered an intrinsic component of initial resuscitation of septic shock.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, et al: Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:858–873
2. Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Van der Meer JW, et al: Delay in administering the first dose of antibiotics in patients admitted to hospital with serious infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 17:681–684
3. Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Meis JF, et al: Earlier initiation of antibiotic treatment for severe infections after interventions to improve the organization and specific guidelines in the emergency department. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:1317–1320
4. Talan DA, Zibulewsky J: Relationship of clinical presentation to time to antibiotics for the emergency department management of suspected bacterial meningitis. Ann Emerg Med 1993; 22:1733–1738
5. Talan DA, Guterman JJ, Overturf GD, et al: Analysis of emergency department management of suspected bacterial meningitis. Ann Emerg Med 1989; 18:856–862
6. Rollins D, Thomasson C, Sperry B: Improving antibiotic delivery time to pneumonia patients: Continuous quality improvement in action. J Nurs Care Qual 1994; 8:22–31
7. McGarvey RN, Harper JJ: Pneumonia mortality reduction and quality improvement in a community hospital. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1993; 19:124–130
8. Gacouin A, Le Tulzo Y, Lavoue S, et al: Severe pneumonia due to Legionella pneumophila: Prognostic factors, impact of delayed appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28:686–691
9. Meehan TP, Fine MJ, Krumholz HM, et al: Quality of care, process, and outcomes in elderly patients with pneumonia. JAMA 1997; 278:2080–2084
10. Proulx N, Frechette D, Toye B, et al: Delays in the administration of antibiotics are associated with mortality from adult acute bacterial meningitis. QJM 2005; 98:291–298
11. Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, et al: Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 2002; 122:262–268
12. Mathevon T, Souweine B, Traore O, et al: ICU-acquired nosocomial infection: Impact of delay of adequate antibiotic treatment. Scand J Infect Dis 2002; 34:831–835
13. Miner JR, Heegaard W, Mapes A, et al: Presentation, time to antibiotics, and mortality of patients with bacterial meningitis at an urban county medical center. J Emerg Med 2001; 21:387–392
14. Kang CI, Kim SH, Kim HB, et al: Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: Risk factors for mortality and influence of delayed receipt of effective antimicrobial therapy on clinical outcome. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37:745–751
15. Lodise TP, McKinnon PS, Swiderski L, et al: Outcomes analysis of delayed antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:1418–1423
16. Larche J, Azoulay E, Fieux F, et al: Improved survival of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29:1688–1695
17. Houck PM, Bratzler DW, Nsa W, et al: Timing of antibiotic administration and outcomes for Medicare patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164:637–644
18. Kumar A, Haery C, Paladugu B, et al: Duration of hypotension prior to antibiotic administration is a critical determinant of outcome in a murine model of E. coli septic shock. J Infect Dis, In Press
19. Bell DD, Ostryzniuk T, Cheang M, et al: A citywide analysis of the utilization of common laboratory tests and imaging procedures in ICUs. Chest 1997; 111:1030–1038
20. Bone RC, Balk R, Cerra FB, et al: ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference: Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest 1992; 101:1644–1655
21. McGeer A, Campbell B, Emori TG, et al: Definitions of infection for surveillance in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control 1991; 19:1–7
22. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al: CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16:128–140
23. Clinical approach to initial choice of antimicrobial therapy. In: The Sanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy. Gilbert DN, Moellering RC Jr, Eliopoulos GM, et al. (Eds). Hyde Park, VT, Antimicrobial Therapy, 2004, pp 2–45
24. Knaus WA, Draper EA: APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985; 13:818–829
25. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al: Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1368–1377
26. Wiggers CJ: The present status of the shock problem. Physiol Rev 1942; 22:74
27. Blow O, Magliore L, Claridge JA, et al: The golden hour and the silver day: Detection and correction of occult hypoperfusion within 24 hours improves outcome from major trauma. J Trauma 1999; 47:964–969
28. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, et al: Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: Reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996; 348:771–775
29. Wood KE: Major pulmonary embolism: Review of a pathophysiologic approach to the golden hour of hemodynamically significant pulmonary embolism. Chest 2002; 121:877–905
30. Carcillo JA, Davis AL, Zaritsky A: Role of early fluid resuscitation in pediatric septic shock. JAMA 1991; 266:1242–1245tion of septic shock.
Back to Top | Article Outline

APPENDIX A

Table. Dia

Table. Dia

*See also p. 1819.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 43 time(s).

Critical Care Medicine
A retrospective observational study of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with severe sepsis: Comparison with a controlled clinical trial*
Wheeler, A; Steingrub, J; Schmidt, GA; Sanchez, P; Jacobi, J; Linde-Zwirble, W; Bates, B; Qualy, RL; Woodward, B; Zeckel, M
Critical Care Medicine, 36(1): 14-23.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000298309.73776.CB
PDF (1375) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008
Dellinger, RP; Levy, MM; Carlet, JM; Bion, J; Parker, MM; Jaeschke, R; Reinhart, K; Angus, DC; Brun-Buisson, C; Beale, R; Calandra, T; Dhainaut, J; Gerlach, H; Harvey, M; Marini, JJ; Marshall, J; Ranieri, M; Ramsay, G; Sevransky, J; Thompson, BT; Townsend, S; Vender, JS; Zimmerman, JL; Vincent, J
Critical Care Medicine, 36(1): 296-327.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000298158.12101.41
PDF (1531) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
A prospective, observational registry of patients with severe sepsis: The Canadian Sepsis Treatment and Response Registry*
Martin, CM; Priestap, F; Fisher, H; Fowler, RA; Heyland, DK; Keenan, SP; Longo, CJ; Morrison, T; Bentley, D; Antman, N
Critical Care Medicine, 37(1): 81-88.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819285f0
PDF (403) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
A prospective, multicenter derivation of a biomarker panel to assess risk of organ dysfunction, shock, and death in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis
Shapiro, NI; Trzeciak, S; Hollander, JE; Birkhahn, R; Otero, R; Osborn, TM; Moretti, E; Nguyen, HB; Gunnerson, KJ; Milzman, D; Gaieski, DF; Goyal, M; Cairns, CB; Ngo, L; Rivers, EP
Critical Care Medicine, 37(1): 96-104.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318192fd9d
PDF (609) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
An international survey: Public awareness and perception of sepsis*
Rubulotta, FM; Ramsay, G; Parker, MM; Dellinger, RP; Levy, MM; Poeze, M
Critical Care Medicine, 37(1): 167-170.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181926883
PDF (180) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Animal models of sepsis: Why does preclinical efficacy fail to translate to the clinical setting?
Dyson, A; Singer, M
Critical Care Medicine, 37(1): S30-S37.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181922bd3
PDF (296) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis*
Gerlach, H; Reinhart, K; Silva, E; Harvey, M; Regan, S; Angus, DC; Levy, MM; Dellinger, RP; Townsend, SR; Linde-Zwirble, WT; Marshall, JC; Bion, J; Schorr, C; Artigas, A; Ramsay, G; Beale, R; Parker, MM
Critical Care Medicine, 38(2): 367-374.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cb0cdc
PDF (530) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Bundled care for septic shock: An analysis of clinical trials*
Barochia, AV; Cui, X; Vitberg, D; Suffredini, AF; O'Grady, NP; Banks, SM; Minneci, P; Kern, SJ; Danner, RL; Natanson, C; Eichacker, PQ
Critical Care Medicine, 38(2): 668-678.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cb0ddf
PDF (864) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
A magic bullet for sepsis: Getting back to the basics*
Kollef, MH; Micek, ST
Critical Care Medicine, 38(2): 733-734.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c895a8
PDF (78) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Early goal-directed therapy of septic shock: We honestly remain skeptical
Micek, ST; Kollef, MH
Critical Care Medicine, 35(3): 995.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000257482.38723.1E
PDF (696) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Sepsis: Time to reconsider the concept
Carlet, J; Cohen, J; Calandra, T; Opal, SM; Masur, H
Critical Care Medicine, 36(3): 964-966.
10.1097/CCM.0B013E318165B886
PDF (136) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis*
Thiel, SW; Asghar, MF; Micek, ST; Reichley, RM; Doherty, JA; Kollef, MH
Critical Care Medicine, 37(3): 819-824.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318196206b
PDF (273) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Pharmacokinetic issues for antibiotics in the critically ill patient
Roberts, JA; Lipman, J
Critical Care Medicine, 37(3): 840-851.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181961bff
PDF (666) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality*
Nguyen, HB; Corbett, SW; Steele, R; Banta, J; Clark, RT; Hayes, SR; Edwards, J; Cho, TW; Wittlake, WA
Critical Care Medicine, 35(4): 1105-1112.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000259463.33848.3D
PDF (496) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Guidelines for evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients: 2008 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America
O’Grady, NP; Barie, PS; Bartlett, JG; Bleck, T; Carroll, K; Kalil, AC; Linden, P; Maki, DG; Nierman, D; Pasculle, W; Masur, H
Critical Care Medicine, 36(4): 1330-1349.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318169eda9
PDF (678) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Impact of time to antibiotics on survival in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in whom early goal-directed therapy was initiated in the emergency department*
Gaieski, DF; Mikkelsen, ME; Band, RA; Pines, JM; Massone, R; Furia, FF; Shofer, FS; Goyal, M
Critical Care Medicine, 38(4): 1045-1053.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cc4824
PDF (1083) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Antibiotics in sepsis and septic shock: Like everything else in life, timing is everything*
Zubert, S; Funk, DJ; Kumar, A
Critical Care Medicine, 38(4): 1211-1212.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d69db7
PDF (641) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Conventional markers of kidney function
Bagshaw, SM; Gibney, RT
Critical Care Medicine, 36(4): S152-S158.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318168c613
PDF (263) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Multiplex polymerase chain reaction detection enhancement of bacteremia and fungemia*
Louie, RF; Tang, Z; Albertson, TE; Cohen, S; Tran, NK; Kost, GJ
Critical Care Medicine, 36(5): 1487-1492.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31816f487c
PDF (486) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Combination of biphasic transmittance waveform with blood procalcitonin levels for diagnosis of sepsis in acutely ill patients
Zakariah, AN; Cozzi, SM; Van Nuffelen, M; Clausi, CM; Pradier, O; Vincent, J
Critical Care Medicine, 36(5): 1507-1512.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181709f19
PDF (1212) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Risk factors for the development of acute lung injury in patients with septic shock: An observational cohort study*
Iscimen, R; Cartin-Ceba, R; Yilmaz, M; Khan, H; Hubmayr, RD; Afessa, B; Gajic, O
Critical Care Medicine, 36(5): 1518-1522.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31816fc2c0
PDF (197) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Moving toward preventive therapy in acute lung injury*
Ali, NA
Critical Care Medicine, 36(5): 1666-1667.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318170f5ba
PDF (1664) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Delayed oxygenation assessment in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia
Blot, SI; Rodriguez, A; Rello, J
Critical Care Medicine, 36(5): 1694-1695.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181710b07
PDF (632) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for predicting outcome in patients with severe sepsis and evidence of hypoperfusion at the time of emergency department presentation*
Jones, AE; Trzeciak, S; Kline, JA
Critical Care Medicine, 37(5): 1649-1654.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819def97
PDF (279) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Vascular dysfunction in septic shock—Any ROCKing news?*
Ytrebo, LM
Critical Care Medicine, 37(5): 1820-1821.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a09408
PDF (1194) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Hypotension and mortality in septic shock: The “golden hour”*
Gross, PA
Critical Care Medicine, 34(6): 1819-1820.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000220054.95214.7D
PDF (1191) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Levo is in the air: Take a deep breath!*
Ertmer, C; Westphal, M; Morelli, A
Critical Care Medicine, 36(6): 1979-1981.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318176aae9
PDF (1321) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Efficacy of colistin/rifampin combination in experimental rat models of sepsis due to a multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain*
Abbruzzetti, A; Saba, V; Scalise, G; Giacometti, A; Cirioni, O; Ghiselli, R; Orlando, F; Silvestri, C; Mocchegiani, F; Rocchi, M; Chiodi, L
Critical Care Medicine, 35(7): 1717-1723.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000266685.25436.03
PDF (576) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Fever in the critically ill medical patient
Laupland, KB
Critical Care Medicine, 37(7): S273-S278.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181aa6117
PDF (222) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: A meta-analytic/meta-regression study
Kumar, A; Safdar, N; Kethireddy, S; Chateau, D
Critical Care Medicine, 38(8): 1651-1664.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181e96b91
PDF (1233) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Clostridium difficile-associated disease and mortality among the elderly critically ill
Zilberberg, MD; Shorr, AF; Micek, ST; Doherty, JA; Kollef, MH
Critical Care Medicine, 37(9): 2583-2589.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ab8388
PDF (291) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
More evidence that timing matters in the treatment of patients with sepsis*
Sevransky, J
Critical Care Medicine, 36(10): 2932-2933.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818700a2
PDF (1015) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Effect of a single dose of tobramycin on systemic inflammatory response-induced acute kidney injury in a 6-hour porcine model*
Lipcsey, M; Carlsson, M; Larsson, A; Algotsson, L; Eriksson, M; Lukinius, A; Sjölin, J
Critical Care Medicine, 37(10): 2782-2790.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a988f8
PDF (1036) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Is it time for intensivists to learn genomics?*
Sevransky, J
Critical Care Medicine, 37(10): 2852-2853.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ad78ea
PDF (671) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Aminoglycosides—Engineering important patient-centered outcomes with antibiotics*
Noble, DW
Critical Care Medicine, 37(10): 2855-2856.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b00457
PDF (671) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Effect of a rapid response system for patients in shock on time to treatment and mortality during 5 years*
Sebat, F; Musthafa, AA; Johnson, D; Kramer, AA; Shoffner, D; Eliason, M; Henry, K; Spurlock, B
Critical Care Medicine, 35(11): 2568-2575.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000287593.54658.89
PDF (1544) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Correctly scoring infections: CSI in the ICU*
Kollef, MH
Critical Care Medicine, 35(11): 2641-2643.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000288092.15341.4A
PDF (956) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Recognizing shock: Who cares, and when?*
Graf, J; Janssens, U
Critical Care Medicine, 35(11): 2651-2652.
10.1097/01.CCM.0000288091.60288.EA
PDF (956) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Early intravenous unfractionated heparin and mortality in septic shock*
Zarychanski, R; Doucette, S; Fergusson, D; Roberts, D; Houston, DS; Sharma, S; Gulati, H; Kumar, A
Critical Care Medicine, 36(11): 2973-2979.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818b8c6b
PDF (425) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Vasopressin and the kidney: Two false friends?*
Ertmer, C; Morelli, A; Westphal, M
Critical Care Medicine, 36(11): 3111-3112.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e318187b7b3
PDF (698) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Why do nice people get bad pneumonia? “Be quick or be dead” (Iron Maiden)*
Luna, CM; Sarquis, S
Critical Care Medicine, 37(11): 2979-2980.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181aff91a
PDF (541) | CrossRef
Critical Care Medicine
Potential clinical utility of polymerase chain reaction in microbiological testing for sepsis
Lehmann, LE; Alvarez, J; Hunfeld, K; Goglio, A; Kost, GJ; Louie, RF; Raglio, A; Regueiro, BJ; Wissing, H; Stüber, F
Critical Care Medicine, 37(12): 3085-3090.
10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b033d7
PDF (405) | CrossRef
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Broad-spectrum antibiotic use in the pediatric intensive care unit: Balancing patient interests against intensive care unit ecology*
Marquardt, DJ; Hall, MW; Sargel, CL
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 10(1): 136-137.
10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181937705
PDF (349) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:

sepsis; antimicrobial; timing; delay; outcome

© 2006 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins