• Crit Care · Nov 2023

    Meta Analysis

    Prognostic differences in sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria and gram-positive bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Aling Tang, Yi Shi, Qingqing Dong, Sihui Wang, Yao Ge, Chenyan Wang, Zhimin Gong, Weizhen Zhang, and Wei Chen.
    • Longhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
    • Crit Care. 2023 Nov 30; 27 (1): 467467.

    BackgroundBacteria 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.MethodsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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).© 2023. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…