Skip to main content
Download PDF

Carbapenem is not always the best choice in the treatment of septic shock

European Journal of Medical Research volume 28, Article number: 372 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Septic shock is a global public health burden. In addition to the improvement of the level of individual care, the improvement of the overall hospital quality control management is also an essential key aspect of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC). Using of antibiotics is a cornerstone in the treatment of septic shock, so we conducted this study to investigate the influence of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on the mortality of septic shock at the level of overall hospital in China.

Methods

This was an observational database study in 2021 enrolled the data of 787 hospitals from 31 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions of Mainland China collected in a survey from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.

Results

The proportion of ICU patients with septic shock was 3.55%, while the patient mortality of septic shock was 23.08%. While carbapenem was the most preferred antibiotic medication used in 459 of the 782 hospitals, the preference for carbapenem did not show significant effect on the patient mortality in the treatment of septic shock (p-value 0.59). Compared with patients with fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock, patients with non-fermenting bacteria had a higher mortality (p-value 0.01).

Conclusions

Whether using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic or not, did not show effect on the patient mortality of septic shock. Compared with patients with fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria, patients of septic shock with non-fermenting bacteria had a higher mortality.

Background

Sepsis is an organ dysfunction caused by the host's dysfunctional response to infection, becomes ultimately a life-threatening disease [1]. Septic shock accounted for 10% of patients admitted to intensive care units [2]. Septic shock is the most severe form of sepsis, with an estimated incidence of 20 per 100,000 population [3]. Intensive care unit (ICU), hospitalization, and one-year mortality for septic shock are 37–47%, 39–56%, and 60%, respectively [3]. In addition to the improvement at the level of individual care, the improvement at the level of overall hospital quality control management is also a key aspect [4, 5]. A pre-established multistep bundles intervention can improve clinical management and outcomes of patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infection [6]. In previous studies, our research group discussed the association of the annual hospital septic shock case volume and the hospital patient mortality [7], as well as the influence factors affecting sepsis 1-h, 3-h and 6-h SSC bundle compliance [8,9,10]. Early resuscitation, antibiotics, and source control are the three cornerstones of the treatment of septic shock. Because patients with septic shock are often critically ill, the concept of hammer punching is still widely popular, and the use of carbapenem is widespread. Therefore, due to the widespread use of carbapenem, the problems of antibiotic resistance and the epidemic of non-fermenting bacteria are also becoming increasingly prominent. Twenty-eight percent of ICU patients tested positive for carriage of Klebsiella pneumoniae immediately upon admission, 54% of which were carbapenem-resistant [11]. Carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii strains were prevalent in 71.4% of the ICUs in China [12]. We conducted this study to investigate the influence of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on the mortality of septic shock at the level of overall hospital in China.

Methods

Design

This was an observational database study from 2021 based on the data source from the National Clinical Improvement System (https://ncisdc.medidata.cn/login.jsp), collected by the China-National Critical Care Quality Control Centre (China-NCCQC). The Quality Improvement of Critical Care (QICC) Program, led by China-NCCQC, was initiated in 2015, while this study is part of the above program.

Study population and settings

A total of 787 hospitals in China were enrolled in this survey study. The ICUs in these hospitals admitted a total of 674,485 patients, including 56,591 patients with septic shock. The enrolled hospitals from 31 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions of Mainland China participated voluntarily in the study and were selected by referring to the following criteria: (1) number of patients admitted to the ICU ≥ 100/year. (2) Number of patients with septic shock admitted to the ICU ≥ 10/year. (3) The ICU needs to have the ability to diagnose infections caused by non-fermenting bacteria and fermenting bacteria. Severe patients are defined as patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score ≥ 15.

Hospitals providing treatment for patients with septic shock in China are mainly tertiary and secondary hospitals. Tertiary hospitals usually serve as medical hubs providing care on the supra-regional level, while secondary hospitals are responsible for providing comprehensive health services on the regional basis [13], wherefore we investigated the two types of hospitals separately.

Variables and measurements

Whether using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication in the treatment of septic shock and whether detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock were measured as variables. The preferred antibiotic medication in the treatment of septic shock means the most frequent antibacterial drugs used among the patients admitted to the ICU this year with septic shock. The most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock means the infectious pathogenic bacteria ranked first among the patients admitted to the ICU this year with septic shock.

Data collection

The data collection was completed between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021. Informed consent was obtained from every study participating hospital’s ethic committees. The collected data were transferred into a data analysis system by an independent research coordinator.

Data analysis

Based on the data obtained from this survey, we first try to find out the effects of whether using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication in the treatment of septic shock and whether detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock on the patient mortality of septic shock. Then we analyzed the above effects in terms of tertiary and secondary hospitals.

Ethical considerations

The current study was reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Guidelines. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The trial protocol was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (NO. SK1828), while individual consent for this analysis was waived. There were no identifying or protected health information included in the analyzed dataset. In addition, all participating hospitals received the approval by their local research ethics boards, with written consent obtained on the hospital-level from the hospital medical directors. The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Information of septic shock patients were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The patient mortality caused by septic shock was expressed as the mean ± standard deviation and media (P25, P75). The unpaired t-test was used to test the basic condition of septic shock patients. The binary logistic regression model and binary statistical analysis were used to investigate the effects of whether using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication in the treatment of septic shock and whether detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock on the patient mortality caused by septic shock, and to conduct subsequent subgroup analysis. All statistical tests were two-tailed, while p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

In the treatment of septic shock, 459 hospitals used carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic treatment, while only 323 hospitals used non-carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic treatment, except 5 hospitals without relevant data. In terms of detecting the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock, 131 hospitals detected non-fermenting bacteria and 602 hospitals detected fermenting bacteria. Hereby, 49 hospitals detected other infection-based bacteria groups, while 5 hospitals were without relevant data. The patient mortality caused by septic shock was 25.05 ± 10.90, 23.08 (15.56, 33.33) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient mortality of septic shock

Full size image

There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, or proportion of severe patients in the group between patients whether using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication in the treatment of septic shock (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences in sex, or age between patients whether detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock (Table 2). The proportion of severe patients in patients detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock was lower than it in patients detecting fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock (p-value 0.03) (Table 2).

Table 1 Information of septic shock patient with different antibiotics
Full size table
Table 2 Information of septic shock patient with different pathogenic bacteria
Full size table

In the treatment of septic shock, whether to use carbapenem as preferred antibiotic had no effect on the patient mortality of septic shock (p-value 0.59) (Fig. 2), and the result was consistent in binary statistical analysis (p-value 0.12) (Fig. 3) and classification analysis by tertiary hospitals (p-value 0.94) and secondary hospitals (p-value 0.57) (Table 3). Compared with patients with fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock, patients with non-fermenting bacteria had a higher mortality (p-value 0.01) (Fig. 2), and the results of binary statistical analysis (p-value 0.03) (Fig. 3) and classification analysis by secondary hospitals were consistent (p-value 0.04) (Table 3). Only the p-value of tertiary hospitals was 0.06 (Table 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effects of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on the patient mortality of septic shock. With carbapenem using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication, without carbapenem not using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication. Non-fermenting detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock, fermenting detecting fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Effects of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on the patient mortality of septic shock. With carbapenem using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication, without carbapenem not using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication. Non-fermenting detecting non-fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock, fermenting detecting fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria causing septic shock.* p < 0.05, compared with the Non-fermenting group.

Full size image
Table 3 Effects of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on the patient mortality of septic shock among hospitals of different grades
Full size table

Discussion

Septic shock refers to the development of fluid-refractory hypotension requiring vasopressors, and is associated with tissue hypoperfusion (lactate > 2 mmol/L) in a patient with sepsis [1]. Septic shock requires prompt identification, appropriate antibiotic treatment, intensive hemodynamic support, and control of infection focus [14]. As a major challenge in the field of global public health, improvement of overall quality control management in hospitals is also an important aspect of the SSC [15,16,17]. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the influence of antibiotics and pathogenic bacteria on septic shock from the perspective of overall hospital.

Although the problem of drug resistance due to abuse has been repeatedly emphasized, carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic medication still ranked first in the antibiotic treatment regime of septic shock in the present study. Carbapenem was used as the preferred antibiotic in 459 of the 782 hospitals, which marks the abuse of carbapenem antibiotics has become an increasingly prominent public health problem. In our research, whether to use carbapenem as preferred antibiotic or not, did not show effect on the mortality of septic shock. One of the potential explanations for this phenomenon could be that the majority of the infections were caused by bacteria strains, which were not only sensitive to carbapenems but also to other antibiotics, wherefore using carbapenem did not show additional benefit effect in the therapy outcome [18, 19]. The application of an initial non-carbapenem antibiotic with a broad spectrum should be a more appropriate choice [20, 21]. For patients with septic shock at high risk of multidrug-resistant organisms, SSC guidelines recommend empiric treatment with two antibiotics with Gram-negative coverage, rather than just one. Given the increased incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms in many parts of the world and the association between treatment delay and adverse outcomes, a combination of drugs is often required for initial treatment to ensure that treatment includes at least one drug that is effective against the causative organism [14]. Due to widespread misunderstanding of the ultra-broad spectrum efficacy of carbapenem, a single antibiotic is often used, resulting in the omission of Gram-negative coverage.

In the clinical application of carbapenem, we should pay attention to the following points: firstly, carbapenem is not always the strongest antibiotic choice. The strongest antibiotic choice should be the most sensitive antibiotic for the pathogenic bacteria of this infection, with the highest tissue concentration on the infection focus [21]. Secondly, the problem of carbapenem resistance is becoming increasingly prominent, including non-fermented bacteria [22, 23] as carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. These increased rapidly in the hospitals, wherefore even in the treatment of non-fermented bacterial infections, carbapenem is not the best choice [24, 25]. Conversely, in the case of carbapenem resistance, it is the worst therapy option. Thirdly, extensive use of carbapenem without critical considerations and control, the situation of carbapenem resistance will deteriorate rapidly. Previous studies have already shown that the likelihood of developing carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli was significantly related to the used amount of carbapenem. Fourth, SSC guidelines recommend rapid identification of infection source requiring urgent control in patients with septic shock and the implementation of any necessary source control intervention as soon as medically technical and logistic feasible [14]. However, due to the widespread misunderstanding of the efficacy of carbapenems and the fluke psychology after the use of carbapenems, the source control intervention is often delayed.

Another explanation for using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotics did not show effect on the mortality of septic shock is probably associated with the availability of carbapenem in China. Early administration of appropriate antimicrobials is one of the most effective interventions to reduce mortality in patients with septic shock [26, 27]. For every additional hour from emergency department admission to antibiotics, in-hospital mortality increased onefold [28]. SSC guidelines recommend antimicrobials given within 1 h to patients with septic shock [14]. Due to the various difficulties of obtaining carbapenem, non-carbapenem antibiotics can often be used in clinical practice in a shorter period of time. Therefore, in the treatment of septic shock, using carbapenem antibiotics without evidence should be strictly prohibited to avoid resistance and abuse on the one hand. And on the other hand, the availability of carbapenem antibiotics should be improved for those patients with evidence for use, to achieve ultimately the purpose of availability without abuse.

The 2009 Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care study identified Gram-negative bacterial infections (e.g., Escherichia coli, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii) as the most common cause of sepsis with a frequency of 62%, followed by Gram-positive infections (mainly Staphylococcus aureus). Gram-negative bacilli are further divided into non-fermentative bacteria and fermentative bacteria. In our present study, 131 of the 782 hospitals (for which data were available) were dominated by non-fermentative bacteria, which is a group of Gram-negative bacteria does not ferment sugar. Non-fermentative Gram-negative bacilli are one of the leading causes of hospital-acquired infections [29,30,31]. There are four major bacteria belonging to this group: Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Burkholderia cepacia. They exist widely in nature and are important pathogens causing hospital infections. With the development of treatment technology and the wide application of new antimicrobial agents, incidence and drug resistance of non-fermentative bacterial infections have increased significantly in recent years [29, 30, 32]. Due to the generally existing multi-drug and even pan-drug resistance of non-fermentative bacteria, their increasing incidence has become a serious problem in the field of anti-infective therapy [33,34,35]. In our study, non-fermentative bacterial infection increased the mortality of septic shock, which was consistent with relevant previous study findings [30, 34]. Further research on septic shock caused by non-fermentative bacteria should be carried out in the future in order to explore how to achieve better therapy efficacy.

There are several limitations to this study. First, since the data of the time period of only one year were presented in this study, the relationships between antibiotics, pathogenic bacteria and mortality of septic shock could not be analyzed from a dynamic perspective. Second, this was an observational study and, therefore, prone to selection bias.

Conclusion

In conclusion, using carbapenem as the preferred antibiotic in the treatment of septic shock did not show effect on the patient mortality of septic shock. Compared with patients with fermenting bacteria as the most common pathogenic bacteria, patients of septic shock with non-fermenting bacteria had a higher mortality.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

ESICM:

European Society for Intensive Critical Care

China-NCCQC:

China National Critical Care Quality Control Center

QICC:

Quality Improvement of Critical Care Program

ICU:

Intensive care unit

APACHE:

Program, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

References

  1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dugar S, Choudhary C, Duggal A. Sepsis and septic shock: guideline-based management. Clevel Clin J Med. 2020;87:53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vincent JL, Jones G, David S, Olariu E, et al. Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2019;23:196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lasater KB, Sloane DM, McHugh MD, Cimiotti JP, et al. Evaluation of hospital nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and sepsis bundles on patient outcomes. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49:868–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Breen SJ, Rees S. Barriers to implementing the Sepsis Six guidelines in an acute hospital setting. Br J Nurs. 2018;27:473–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bavaro DF, Diella L, Belati A, De Gennaro N, et al. Impact of a multistep bundles intervention in the management and outcome of gram-negative bloodstream infections: a single-center, “proof-of-concept” study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9:ofac488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen Y, Ma XD, Kang XH, Gao SF, et al. Association of annual hospital septic shock case volume and hospital mortality. Crit Care. 2022;26:161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang L, Ma X, He H, Su L, et al. Compliance with the surviving sepsis campaign guideline 1-hour bundle for septic shock in China in 2018. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:278.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang L, Ma X, He H, Su L, et al. Analysis of structure indicators influencing 3-h and 6-h compliance with the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines in China: a systematic review. Eur J Med Res. 2021;26:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang L, Ma XD, He HW, Su LX, et al. Analysis of factors influencing 3-and 6-h compliance with the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines based on medical-quality intensive care unit data from China. Chin Med J. 2021;134:1747–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Qin X, Wu S, Hao M, Zhu J, et al. The Colonization of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: epidemiology, resistance mechanisms, and risk factors in patients admitted to intensive care units in china. J Infect Dis. 2020;221:S206–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu C, Chen K, Wu Y, Huang L, et al. Epidemiological and genetic characteristics of clinical carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii strains collected countrywide from hospital intensive care units (ICUs) in China. Emerging Microbes Infect. 2022;11:1730–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Salvatierra GG, Gulek BG, Erdik B, Bennett D, et al. In-hospital sepsis mortality rates comparing tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals in Washington state. J Emerg Med. 2018;54:785–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1181–247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Dierkes AM, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Cimiotti JP, et al. Hospital nurse staffing and sepsis protocol compliance and outcomes among patients with sepsis in the USA: a multistate cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e056802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hyun DG, Lee SY, Ahn JH, Huh JW, et al. Mortality of patients with hospital-onset sepsis in hospitals with all-day and non-all-day rapid response teams: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2022;26:280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nates LKC, Neto AC, Pereira AJ, Silva E, et al. Quality improvement model (IHI) as a strategy to implement a sepsis protocol in a public hospital in Brazil. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9:e000354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rhee C, Kadri SS, Dekker JP, Danner RL, et al. Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in culture-proven sepsis and outcomes associated with inadequate and broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic use. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e202899.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Britt NS, Ritchie DJ, Kollef MH, Burnham CA, et al. Importance of site of infection and antibiotic selection in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e02400-17.

  20. Tamma PD, Miller MA, Cosgrove SE. Recalibrating our approach to the management of sepsis: how the four moments of antibiotic decision-making can help. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18:200–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou X, Su LX, Zhang JH, Liu DW, et al. Rules of anti-infection therapy for sepsis and septic shock. Chin Med J. 2019;132:589–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nordmann P, Poirel L. Epidemiology and diagnostics of carbapenem resistance in gram-negative bacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69:S521–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Peri AM, Doi Y, Potoski BA, Harris PNA, et al. Antimicrobial treatment challenges in the era of carbapenem resistance. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;94:413–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lan P, Jiang Y, Zhou J, Yu Y. A global perspective on the convergence of hypervirulence and carbapenem resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2021;25:26–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnston BD, Thuras P, Porter SB, Anacker M, et al. Global molecular epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (2002–2017). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gavelli F, Castello LM, Avanzi GC. Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med. 2021;16:1649–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kollef MH, Shorr AF, Bassetti M, Timsit JF, et al. Timing of antibiotic therapy in the ICU. Crit Care. 2021;25:360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, Friedrich ME, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2235–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Adan FN, Jeele MOO, Omar NMS. Epidemiology of multidrug resistant non-fermentative gram negative bacilli in patients with hospital acquired pneumonia: an alarming report from Somalia. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:6297–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pascale R, Corcione S, Bussini L, Pancaldi L, et al. Non-fermentative gram-negative bloodstream infection in northern Italy: a multicenter cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:806.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Shrestha M, Baral R, Shrestha LB. Metallo-beta lactamase producing non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli from various clinical isolates in a tertiary care hospital: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59:875–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Xia Q, Zhao R, Ren H, Fang H, et al. Epidemiological investigation of non-fermentative bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;13:815–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yadav SK, Bhujel R, Mishra SK, Sharma S, et al. Carbapenem resistance in non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli isolated from intensive care unit patients of a referral hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2021;19:55–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guner Ozenen G, Sahbudak Bal Z, Umit Z, Avcu G, et al. Nosocomial Non-fermentative gram negative bacteria bloodstream infections in children; risk factors and clinical outcomes of carbapenem resistance. J Infect Chemother. 2021;27:729–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chmielarczyk A, Pobiega M, Ziolkowski G, Pomorska-Wesolowska M, et al. Severe infections caused by multidrug-resistant non-fermentative bacilli in southern Poland. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018;27:401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants and staff. The China National Critical Care Quality Control Center Group consists of the following persons: Xue Wang, Xiangdong Guan, Yan Kang, Bin Xiong, Bingyu Qin, Kejian Qian, Chunting Wang, Mingyan Zhao, Xiaochun Ma, Xiangyou Yu, Jiandong Lin, Aijun Pan, Haibo Qiu, Feng Shen, Shusheng Li, Yuhang Ai, Xiaohong Xie, Jing Yan, Weidong Wu, Meili Duan, Linjun Wan, Xiaojun Yang, Jian Liu, Hang Xu, Dongpo Jiang, Lei Xu, Zhuang Chen, Guoying Lin, Zhengping Yang, Zhenjie Hu.

Funding

This research was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2020YFC0861000), China Medical Board (No. CMB 20-381) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81801901).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lu Wang, Xudong Ma and Yujie Chen contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China

    Lu Wang, Yujie Chen, Huaiwu He, Longxiang Su, Xiang Zhou & Dawei Liu

  2. Department of Medical Administration, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, 100044, China

    Xudong Ma, Sifa Gao & Yanhong Guo

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medicine Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) & School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China

    Guangliang Shan & Yaoda Hu

  4. Information Center Department/Department of Information Management, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China

    Xiang Zhou

Authors
  1. Lu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xudong Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yujie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sifa Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Huaiwu He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Longxiang Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yanhong Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guangliang Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yaoda Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xiang Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Dawei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

China National Critical Care Quality Control Centre Group (China-NCCQC)

  • Xue Wang
  • , Xiangdong Guan
  • , Yan Kang
  • , Bin Xiong
  • , Bingyu Qin
  • , Kejian Qian
  • , Chunting Wang
  • , Mingyan Zhao
  • , Xiaochun Ma
  • , Xiangyou Yu
  • , Jiandong Lin
  • , Aijun Pan
  • , Haibo Qiu
  • , Feng Shen
  • , Shusheng Li
  • , Yuhang Ai
  • , Xiaohong Xie
  • , Jing Yan
  • , Weidong Wu
  • , Meili Duan
  • , Linjun Wan
  • , Xiaojun Yang
  • , Jian Liu
  • , Hang Xu
  • , Dongpo Jiang
  • , Lei Xu
  • , Zhuang Chen
  • , Guoying Lin
  • , Zhengping Yang
  •  & Zhenjie Hu

Contributions

XZ and DL conceived of and designed the study, interpreted the data, and helped draft the manuscript. LW, XM, YC, SG, HH, LS and YG participated in the study conception and design, collected the data, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. GS and YH performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiang Zhou or Dawei Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The trial protocol was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (NO. SK1828) and individual consent for this retrospective analysis was waived. The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Consent for publication

All authors have seen and agreed with the contents of the manuscript, and the manuscript has been submitted solely to this journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, L., Ma, X., Chen, Y. et al. Carbapenem is not always the best choice in the treatment of septic shock. Eur J Med Res 28, 372 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01341-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01341-x

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us