Prognostic differences in sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria and gram-positive bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bacteria
Gram-negative
Gram-positive
Prognosis
Sepsis
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
08
10
2023
accepted:
19
11
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
1
12
2023
entrez:
1
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bacteria are the main pathogens that cause sepsis. The pathogenic mechanisms of sepsis caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria are completely different, and their prognostic differences in sepsis remain unclear. The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for Chinese and English studies (January 2003 to September 2023). Observational studies involving gram-negative (G (-))/gram-positive (G (+)) bacterial infection and the prognosis of sepsis were included. The stability of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to check whether there was publication bias. A meta-regression analysis was conducted on the results with high heterogeneity to identify the source of heterogeneity. A total of 6949 articles were retrieved from the database, and 45 studies involving 5586 subjects were included after screening according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-seven high-quality studies and 18 moderate-quality studies were identified according to the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale score. There was no significant difference in the survival rate of sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria and G (+) bacteria (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70-1.28). Subgroup analysis according to survival follow-up time showed no significant difference. The serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.02-0.76), procalcitonin (SMD = 1.95, 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (MD = 0.31, 95% CI 0.25-0.38) in the G (-) bacterial infection group were significantly higher than those in the G (+) bacterial infection group, but there was no significant difference in IL-6 (SMD = 1.33, 95% CI - 0.18-2.84) and WBC count (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.96-00.66). There were no significant differences between G (-) and G (+) bacteria in D dimer level, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, international normalized ratio, platelet count, length of stay or length of ICU stay. Sensitivity analysis of the above results indicated that the results were stable. The incidence of severe sepsis and the concentrations of inflammatory factors (CRP, PCT, TNF-α) in sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria were higher than those caused by G (+) bacteria. The two groups had no significant difference in survival rate, coagulation function, or hospital stay. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023465051).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bacteria are the main pathogens that cause sepsis. The pathogenic mechanisms of sepsis caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria are completely different, and their prognostic differences in sepsis remain unclear.
METHODS
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for Chinese and English studies (January 2003 to September 2023). Observational studies involving gram-negative (G (-))/gram-positive (G (+)) bacterial infection and the prognosis of sepsis were included. The stability of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to check whether there was publication bias. A meta-regression analysis was conducted on the results with high heterogeneity to identify the source of heterogeneity. A total of 6949 articles were retrieved from the database, and 45 studies involving 5586 subjects were included after screening according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-seven high-quality studies and 18 moderate-quality studies were identified according to the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale score. There was no significant difference in the survival rate of sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria and G (+) bacteria (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70-1.28). Subgroup analysis according to survival follow-up time showed no significant difference. The serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.02-0.76), procalcitonin (SMD = 1.95, 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (MD = 0.31, 95% CI 0.25-0.38) in the G (-) bacterial infection group were significantly higher than those in the G (+) bacterial infection group, but there was no significant difference in IL-6 (SMD = 1.33, 95% CI - 0.18-2.84) and WBC count (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.96-00.66). There were no significant differences between G (-) and G (+) bacteria in D dimer level, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, international normalized ratio, platelet count, length of stay or length of ICU stay. Sensitivity analysis of the above results indicated that the results were stable.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of severe sepsis and the concentrations of inflammatory factors (CRP, PCT, TNF-α) in sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria were higher than those caused by G (+) bacteria. The two groups had no significant difference in survival rate, coagulation function, or hospital stay. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023465051).
Identifiants
pubmed: 38037118
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04750-w
pii: 10.1186/s13054-023-04750-w
pmc: PMC10691150
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
0
C-Reactive Protein
9007-41-4
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
467Subventions
Organisme : The fifth batch of " Longyi Scholar" Clinical Scientific and technological Innovation training Project of Longhua Hospital affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
ID : PY2022011
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2023 Apr 2;650:137-144
pubmed: 36801697
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2014 Mar;26(3):165-70
pubmed: 24598289
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013 May;51(5):1059-67
pubmed: 23072859
Infect Immun. 2003 Oct;71(10):5803-13
pubmed: 14500502
Future Microbiol. 2023 Sep;18:875-883
pubmed: 37594461
Crit Care. 2008;12(6):R158
pubmed: 19091069
Xi Bao Yu Fen Zi Mian Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Jun;37(6):532-537
pubmed: 34060448
J Infect Dis. 2003 Jan 15;187(2):287-91
pubmed: 12552453
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2015 Jun;27(6):448-53
pubmed: 26049182
Crit Care Med. 1999 Aug;27(8):1608-16
pubmed: 10470773
Shock. 2003 Nov;20(5):402-14
pubmed: 14560103
Exp Ther Med. 2017 Jun;13(6):3479-3483
pubmed: 28587428
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2023 Oct;42(10):1173-1181
pubmed: 37597051
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 14;13(11):e0206527
pubmed: 30427887
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2021 Jul;33(7):792-797
pubmed: 34412746
Med Clin (Barc). 2019 May 3;152(9):346-349
pubmed: 30266306
J Res Med Sci. 2016 Jun 14;21:39
pubmed: 27904585
Crit Care. 2020 Mar 20;24(1):110
pubmed: 32192532
Crit Care Med. 2007 Nov;35(11):2538-46
pubmed: 17828034
Front Immunol. 2023 Jan 10;13:1058606
pubmed: 36703970
Med Sci Monit. 2022 May 05;28:e935966
pubmed: 35509186
Ir J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;186(1):207-212
pubmed: 27139197
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Mar;33(3):313-24
pubmed: 23990136
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jul;40(7):2016-21
pubmed: 22584765
Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;31(4):851-8
pubmed: 11049761
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Shock. 2017 Jan;47(1):119-124
pubmed: 27984536
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Aug;36(8):1341-1345
pubmed: 29276032
Platelets. 2017 Sep;28(6):595-601
pubmed: 28033029
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 04;11(1):e0145929
pubmed: 26727202
Sci Rep. 2015 Jun 16;5:11355
pubmed: 26079127
Crit Care Med. 1982 May;10(5):308-10
pubmed: 6918253
Platelets. 2015;26(4):331-5
pubmed: 22731700
BMC Infect Dis. 2023 Jun 26;23(1):431
pubmed: 37365506
JAMA. 2009 Dec 2;302(21):2323-9
pubmed: 19952319
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003 Mar;9(3):202-11
pubmed: 12667252
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Feb;38(2):324-32
pubmed: 22183712
Intern Med. 2014;53(14):1497-503
pubmed: 25030560
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Jul;22(13):4238-4242
pubmed: 30024613
Sci Transl Med. 2022 Sep 14;14(662):eabj2381
pubmed: 36103517
Am J Med Sci. 2015 Jun;349(6):499-504
pubmed: 25992537
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jul;16(3):379-414
pubmed: 12857774
Medicine (Baltimore). 2008 Jul;87(4):234-249
pubmed: 18626306
Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1999 Jun;13(2):397-412
pubmed: 10340174
Med Microbiol Immunol. 1999 Mar;187(3):173-81
pubmed: 10206149
JAMA. 2020 Apr 21;323(15):1478-1487
pubmed: 32207816
Ann Intern Med. 1990 Aug 1;113(3):227-42
pubmed: 2197912
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R27
pubmed: 20202204