4.5 Article

Epidemiology and outcomes of source control procedures in critically ill patients with intra-abdominal infection

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 52, Issue -, Pages 258-264

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.02.029

Keywords

Inn-abdominal infection; Sepsis; Therapy; Surgery; Critically ill; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. Center for Translation Molecular Medicine, project MARS [041-201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the characteristics and procedural outcomes of source control interventions among Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients with severe intra-abdominal-infection (IAI). Material and methods: We identified consecutive patients with suspected IAI in whom a source control intervention had been performed in two tertiary ICUs in the Netherlands, and performed retrospective in-depth case reviews to evaluate procedure type, diagnostic yield, and adequacy of source control after 14 days. Results: A total of 785 procedures were observed among 353 patients, with initial interventions involving 266 (75%) surgical versus 87 (25%) percutaneous approaches. Surgical index procedures typically involved IAI of (presumed) gastrointestinal origin (72%), whereas percutaneous index procedures were mostly performed for infections of the biliary tract/pancreas (50%) or peritoneal cavity (33%). Overall, 178 (50%) patients required multiple interventions (median 3 (IQR 2-4)). In a subgroup of 236 patients having their first procedure upon ICU admission, effective source control was ultimately achieved for 159 (67%) subjects. Persistence of organ failure was associated with inadequacy of source control at day 14, whereas trends in inflammatory markers were non-predictive. Conclusions: Approximately half of ICU patients with IAI require more than one intervention, yet successful source control is eventually achieved in a majority of cases. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available