Lessening sepsis’s deadly effects means quickly recognising its signs and symptoms, and initiating antibiotic treatments, but some experts have wondered whether this may contribute to antibiotic overuse, especially with time-to-treatment performance measures. A new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that it was possible to effectively treat sepsis while engaging in antibiotic stewardship.
The study led by Hallie Prescott, MD, of the University of Michigan Health Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and Vincent Liu, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, looked at data from more than 1.5 million patients from 2013–2018. Patients included came to the emergency department with signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), which includes increased heart rate, abnormal body temperature, among other signs.
The research team analysed antibiotics use in these patients, including number receiving antibiotics, when treatment started, treatment duration medications and the broadness of spectrum of the antibiotics.
“We showed in the overall cohort, that antibiotic use decreased. There was a slight decrease in the proportion treated within 48 hours, a more impressive decrease in the average number of days of antibiotic treatment, and also a decrease in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics,” said Dr Prescott.
About half of the people who met the criteria for SIRS received antibiotics within 12 to 48 hours after admission, a practice that decreased slightly over time. At the same time, 30-day mortality, length of hospitalisation, and the development of multi-drug resistant bacteria also decreased.
“This study adds to our national conversation about how to combat sepsis most effectively. It also confirms that we now need to look for new opportunities to mitigate sepsis by finding patients at high risk before they arrive at the hospital, identifying hospitalised patients most likely to benefit from specific treatments, and enhancing their recovery after they survive sepsis,” said Dr Liu.
Dr Prescott agrees: “The pushback has been [time-to-treatment for sepsis] should not be a performance measure because it’s going to cause more harm than good, and I think our data shows it probably does more good than harm. We have shown that 152 hospitals have been able to make improvements in stewardship and sepsis treatment at the same time, contrary to popular belief.”
