Advertisement

Critical Care

, 12:145 | Cite as

Diagnosing sepsis: does the microbiology matter?

  • Jonathan Cohen
Commentary

Abstract

Sepsis is caused by infection, and knowing what type of organism is causing the infection certainly matters in terms of both epidemiology and selecting antibiotic therapy. Although there is considerable laboratory evidence that micro-organisms initiate sepsis in different ways, the clinical consequences are usually indistinguishable. New drugs that target specific points in the activation pathway are starting to emerge, and these will require us to be much more accurate in how we diagnose sepsis.

Keywords

Streptococcus Pneumoniae Klebsiella Pneumoniae Nosocomial Pneumonia Toxic Shock Syndrome Infection Control Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Given the time and attention devoted to sepsis in most intensive care units and the amount of antibiotics that are prescribed for what is by common consent a disease caused by micro-organisms, the title of the paper by Gao and coworkers [1] in this issue of Critical Care might seem a little curious. Knowing whether the infecting organism is Streptococcus pneumoniae or Escherichia coli quite clearly matters when it comes to prescribing antibiotics. It is intuitively the case that patients who are treated with antibiotics that are effective against the causative organism are more likely to do well than if they are treated with an ineffective agent – an impression confirmed by a number of observational studies [2, 3]. Indeed, a recent paper [4] went further and demonstrated that it was not only the choice of antibiotics but also the speed with which they were given that was crucial; delaying the start of treatment, even by as little as 1 hour, increases the chance of a poor outcome. Identifying the organism is also important for epidemiological reasons [5]. For instance, it clearly matters whether the patient's wound abscess is caused by a fully sensitive Staphylococcus aureus or a methicillin-resistant S. aureus, not just because antibiotic therapy (if indicated) would be different, but also because we might wish to isolate the patient with methicillin-resistant S. aureus or at least use enhanced infection control practices. However, the real question posed by Gao and coworkers is whether knowing the micro-organism 'matters' in terms of either the clinical course of the illness or response to treatment, and this is considerably less clear.

There is no doubt that different micro-organisms initiate what we call 'sepsis' in different ways. Bacteria have a wide range of components that can injure the host, and these components vary fundamentally. For instance, Gram-negative bacteria have lipopolysaccharide (endotoxin) in their cell wall but Gram-positive bacteria do not; instead, many of them produce soluble exotoxins. Certain bacteria have rather specific virulence mechanisms; for example, the O157 strains of E. coli produce the verocytotoxin that is associated with haemolytic-uraemic syndrome, and certain strains of S. aureus produce toxic shock syndrome toxin-1, which is indelibly associated with the tampon-associated syndrome (although it is now known to cause disease in other settings too). These different virulence mechanisms engage with the host in different ways, and indeed the past 10 years has seen a quite remarkable dissection of the innate immune response to severe infection [6]. Most striking has been the opportunity afforded by advances in gene profiling to demonstrate that exposing human cells and tissues to different types of bacteria elicits different patterns of gene activation [7], which is perhaps the clearest evidence yet that the infecting organism does indeed 'matter'.

However, the uncomfortable reality is that with few exceptions we cannot tell from the end of the bed whether the patient's nosocomial pneumonia is due to S. aureus or E. coli, and we certainly cannot tell whether it is caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Furthermore, apart from ensuring that we choose the appropriate antibiotic, there are no differences in the way that we would treat the patient. It seems that the clinical picture of sepsis is in effect a 'final common pathway' that results from activation of the host response to overwhelming infection; by the time we see it, it is no longer possible to differentiate the process that initiated it. This reality is nicely illustrated by a recent paper [8] that looked at gene expression profiles in a clinical rather than laboratory setting. Although profiles were clearly different in septic compared to control patients, the investigators could not distinguish Gram-positive from Gram-negative sepsis. As Fry pointed out in an accompanying editorial [9], it looks as though sepsis is a 'generic' response to infection.

That goes to the heart of a debate that has been frustrating clinicians for too long. Sepsis is a real phenomenon – we see it every day in the intensive care unit – but it is too generic (diverse) to have a meaningful pathophysiological description or definition [10]. If instead we were to ask, 'Pneumonia – does the nature of the infecting organism matter?', we would get a very clear and unambiguous answer. As long as there is no real evidence that knowing the organism is important in terms of selecting specific adjunctive therapy, the debate is moot. However, as soon as we identify a form of therapy that is specific to the type of infection – an effective anti-endotoxin, for example, or a Toll-like receptor blocker that preferentially blocks activation by Gram-positive bacteria – then it will be time to describe patients' infections much more accurately: E. coli pneumonia or staphylococcal empyema [11]. 'Sepsis' will still be a useful term, but it will no longer be fit for purpose.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Gao H, Evans TW, Finney SJ: Bench-to-bedside review: Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock – does the nature of the infecting organism matter? Crit Care 2008, 12: 212. 10.1186/cc6837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garnacho-Montero J, Garcia-Garmendia JL, Barrero-Almodovar A, Jimenez-Jimenez FJ, Perez-Paredes C, Ortiz-Leyba C: Impact of adequate empirical antibiotic therapy on the outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with sepsis. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 2742-2751. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098031.24329.10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harbarth S, Garbino J, Pugin J, Romand JA, Lew D, Pittet D: Inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy and its effect on survival in a clinical trial of immunomodulating therapy for severe sepsis. Am J Med 2003, 115: 529-535. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.07.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, Gurka D, Kumar A, Cheang M: Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 1589-1596. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Llewelyn MJ, Cohen J: Tracking the microbes in sepsis: advancements in treatment bring challenges for microbial epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 44: 1343-1348. 10.1086/515403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Remick DG: Pathophysiology of sepsis. Am J Pathol 2007, 170: 1435-1444. 10.2353/ajpath.2007.060872PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feezor RJ, Oberholzer C, Baker HV, Novick D, Rubinstein M, Moldawer LL, Pribble J, Souza S, Dinarello CA, Ertel W, Oberholzer A: Molecular characterization of the acute inflammatory response to infections with gram-negative versus gram-positive bacteria. Infect Immun 2003, 71: 5803-5813. 10.1128/IAI.71.10.5803-5813.2003PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang BM, McLean AS, Dawes IW, Huang SJ, Cowley MJ, Lin RC: Gene-expression profiling of Gram-positive and Gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 1125-1128. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181692c0bCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fry DE: The generic septic response. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 1369-1370. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31816a11e9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, Cohen J, Opal SM, Vincent JL, Ramsay G, SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS: 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International sepsis definitions conference. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 1250-1256. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3BCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlet J, Cohen J, Calandra T, Opal S, Masur H: Sepsis: time to reconsider the concept. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 964-966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© BioMed Central Ltd 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Clinical MedicineBrighton & Sussex Medical SchoolUK

Personalised recommendations