Targeted versus Empiric Embolization for Delayed Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study of 312 Patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and clinical effectiveness of empiric embolization (EE) compared with targeted embolization (TE) in the treatment of delayed postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of patients with delayed PPH between January 2012 and August 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. In total, 312 consecutive patients (59.6 years ± 10.8; 239 men) were included. The group was stratified into 3 cohorts according to angiographic results and treatment strategies: TE group, EE group, and no embolization (NE) group. The χ2 or Fisher exact test was implemented for comparing the clinical success and 30-day mortality. The variables related to clinical failure and 30-day mortality were identified by univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Clinical success of transcatheter arterial embolization was achieved in 70.0% (170/243) of patients who underwent embolization. There was no statistical difference in clinical success and 30-day mortality between the EE and TE groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that malignant disease (odds ratio [OR] = 5.76), Grade C pancreatic fistula (OR = 7.59), intra-abdominal infection (OR = 2.54), and concurrent extraluminal and intraluminal hemorrhage (OR = 2.52) were risk factors for clinical failure. Moreover, 33 patients (13.6%) died within 30 days after embolization. Advanced age (OR = 2.59) and intra-abdominal infection (OR = 5.55) were identified as risk factors for 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: EE is safe and as effective as TE in preventing rebleeding and mortality in patients with angiographically negative delayed PPH.

Epidemiología, resistencia antimicrobiana y tratamiento antibiótico empírico en peritonitis secundarias de la comunidad en un centro de la prov. de Buenos Aires / Epidemiology and review of antibiotic treatment in secondary community peritonitis in a province Buenos Aires's center

Las peritonitis secundarias constituyen una causa frecuente de internación y de uso de antibioticoterapia dentro de las infecciones intraabdominales. Realizamos un estudio retrospectivo, descriptivo y observacional de centro único desde enero a diciembre de 2021. El objetivo del estudio fue conocer la epidemiología local y adecuar el tratamiento empírico de las peritonitis secundarias de la comunidad. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores a 16 años con peritonitis secundaria, intervención quirúrgica, envío de material a cultivo y desarrollo microbiano de bacterias aerobias a través de la revisión de historias clínicas. Se analizaron cultivos de 36 pacientes, 64% de sexo masculino con una media de edad de 48,8 años. El 22% requirió internación en unidad de cuidados intensivos. La principal causa fue apendicitis aguda en el 61%, seguido por perforación secundaria a tumores. Se aislaron 43 bacterias aerobias (1,2 bacterias por episodio) siendo E. coli el microorganismo más frecuente. En la institución se utiliza piperacilina-tazobactam como tratamiento empírico. De acuerdo a las recomendaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Infectología de 2018, en infecciones no complicadas podría utilizarse aminoglucósidos + metronidazol, optando por piperacilina-tazobactam en casos graves. No es recomendado como tratamiento empírico el uso de ampicilina-sulbactam y ciprofloxacina para infecciones graves o con difícil control del foco por la alta tasa de resistencia. En base a nuestro estudio podemos concluir que la epidemiología de los pacientes coincide con lo descrito en publicaciones nacionales, lo que nos lleva a reconsiderar el tratamiento empírico en casos leves, pudiendo optar por aminoglucósidos + metronidazol.

Secondary peritonitis is a frequent cause of hospital admission and an usual cause of use of antibiotic therapy in abdominal infections. We did a retrospective and observational study in one health center between January 2021 and December 2021. The aim of the study was to analyze the local epidemiology and adapt antibiotic empirical therapy of secondary community peritonitis. Patients aged 16 years and older with secondary peritonitis were included in this study. These patients needed surgical intervention and they had a positive culture with aerobic microorganism. We analyzed abdominal cultures from 36 patients, 64% men with a median age of 48.8 years. Twenty- two percent of these patients were admitted to intensive care unit. Acute appendicitis was the principal cause of secondary peritonitis in 61% of cases, followed by tumors. We found 43 aerobic bacterias (1.2 bacteria/episode), E.coli was the most frequent microorganism. In our hospital we use piperacillin- tazobactam for empirical treatment. According to the 2018 recommendations from the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases, aminoglycosides + metronidazole can be used for uncomplicated intra-abdominal infections, and piperacillin-tazobactam should be used only in severe cases. However, ampicillin-sulbactam or ciprofloxacin is not recommended for severe cases or complicated infections due to the high resistance rates. Based on the finding of the study, it could be said that the epidemiology of the patients coincides with what was described in other national medical journals. Therefore, we should reconsider the use of aminoglycosides + metronidazole as empirical treatment for mild cases.

[Expert consensus on multidisciplinary management of intra-abdominal infections].

Intra-abdominal infections(IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and complications, which usually need multidisciplinary management including surgeons, intensivists, infectious disease experts, microbiologists, and clinical pharmacists. Based on international and domestic guidelines and recent advances, a number of experts' statements of consensus, with a problem-oriented approach, were made on the cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs such as early recognition, etiology identification, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Main recommendations include concepts of intra-abdominal infection, pathoqen diagnosis precautions; surgical intervention principles and strategies of specific causes including acute appendicitis, upper gastrointestinal perforation, lower gastrointestinal perforation, acute biliary infection, liver abscess, severe acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula, anastomotic leakage, gastrointestinal perforation, as well as perforation due to endoscopic procedure etc.; principles of antimicrobial therapy, dosage of antibiotics in specific population and pathophysiological state; and systematic support of severe infection such as early resuscitation and nutrition support.

[Research progress in the application of necrotic cavity lavage in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis].

Lavage has been used in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis(IPN) for a long time.It can be divided into peritoneal lavage and necrotic cavity lavage according to different parts of lavage.At present,peritoneal lavage is rarely used,while necrotic cavity lavage is widely used in laparotomy,minimally invasive surgery and endoscopic debridement and drainage for IPN patients.However,there is no unified standard for the type,method,duration and indication of stopping lavage.The application of lavage is controversial: proponents think that necrotic cavity lavage can dilute and remove residual or new necrotic tissue,remove inflammatory mediators and reduce the times of debridement,etc.While opponents think that lavage can not significantly reduce the concentration of phospholipase A2 and other bioactive substances,and is easy to form abscess and peripancreatic sepsis and cause infection to spread into the abdominal cavity and form peritonitis.In conclusion,necrotic cavity lavage can benefit some patients,especially those with smaller drainage diameter who underwent endoscopic debridement and percutaneous catheter drainage.However,whether it is necessary for patients with larger drainage diameter who underwent laparotomy or video-assisted debridement still needs to be further studied by randomized controlled trials.

Bilateral acute renal cortical necrosis after a dog bite: case report.

BACKGROUND: Capnocytophaga canimorsus is a Gram-negative capnophilic rod and part of dogs/cats' normal oral flora. It can be transmitted by bites, scratches, or even by contact of saliva with injured skin. Asplenic patients and patients with alcohol abuse are at particular risk for fulminant C. canimorsus sepsis. However, also immunocompetent patients can have a severe or even fatal infection. This is the first case of a severe C. canimorsus infection in an immunocompromised host complicated by acute renal cortical necrosis with a "reverse rim sign" in contrast-enhanced computed tomography on hospital admission. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 44-year functionally asplenic patient after an allogeneic stem cell transplantation, who presented with septic shock after a minor dog bite injury 4 days prior. Because of abdominal complaints, epigastric pain with local peritonism, and radiological gallbladder wall thickening, an abdominal focus was suspected after the initial work-up. The patient underwent emergent open cholecystectomy, but the clinical suspicion of abdominal infection was not confirmed. Septic shock was further complicated by cardiomyopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. As a causative pathogen, C. canimorsus could be isolated. The clinical course was complicated by permanent hemodialysis and extensive acral necrosis requiring amputation of several fingers and both thighs. CONCLUSION: We present a severe case of a C. canimorsus infection in a functionally asplenic patient after a minor dog bite. The clinical course was complicated by septic shock, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and the need for multiple amputations. In addition, the rare form of acute renal failure - bilateral acute renal cortical necrosis - was visible as "reverse rim sign" on computed tomography scan. This case is an example of the potential disastrous consequences when omitting pre-emptive antibiotic therapy in wounds inflicted by cats and dogs, particularly in asplenic patients.

Endoscopic drainage with local infusion of antibiotics to avoid necrosectomy of infected walled-off necrosis.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) follows a step-up approach. Our group designed a step-up protocol that associates endoscopic drainage with local infusion of antibiotics through transmural nasocystic catheter. Aim of our study was to evaluate our step-up protocol for IPN in terms of proportion of patients avoiding necrosectomy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients admitted with acute pancreatitis (AP) between January 2015 and December 2018. The number of patients who responded to each therapeutic step were analysed: step 1, systemic antibiotics; step 2, endoscopic transmural drainage and local infusion of antibiotics; step 3, endoscopic necrosectomy. RESULTS: 1158 patients with AP were included. 110 patients (8.4%) suffered from necrotising pancreatitis; 48 of them had IPN (42.6% of necrotising pancreatitis) and were treated with systemic antibiotics. Nineteen patients (39.6% of IPN) responded and did not required any invasive therapy. Six patients with IPN on systemic antibiotics died within the first 4 weeks of disease before step 2 could be applied. Urgent surgical necrosectomy in the first 4 weeks was performed in three additional patients. Endoscopic drainage and local antibiotic therapy was performed in the remaining 20 patients; 9 (45% of them) did well and 9 patients underwent necrosectomy (18.7% of IPN). Two patients died on drainage. Overall mortality of the total cohort of AP was 2.53% CONCLUSIONS: Addition of local infusion of antibiotics to endoscopic drainage avoids the need of necrosectomy in half of patients with IPN not responding to systemic antibiotics.

Procalcitonin as an Early Predictor of Intra-abdominal Infections Following Gastric Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of postoperative procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) for their ability to detect Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) in patients after GC surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for primary GC were retrospectively enrolled between October 2018 and October 2019. The PCT and CRP levels and white blood cell (WBC) count were measured before surgery and on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 5, and 7. The differences in serum PCT, CRP, and WBC levels between IAIs and non-IAIs groups were compared. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified independent clinical factors that predicted postoperative IAIs. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients who underwent GC surgery were enrolled. IAIs were observed in 12 patients (7.74%). The postoperative CRP and PCT values in the IAI group were higher than those in the non-IAI group. PCT had superior diagnostic accuracy on POD 3 (area under the curve 0.769) with an optimal cutoff value of 2.03 ng/mL, yielding 75% sensitivity, 87.4% specificity, and 97.6% negative predictive value. Multivariate analysis identified a PCT level of 2.03 mg/mL or greater on POD 3 as a significant predictive factor for IAIs after gastrectomy (odds ratio: 21.447, 95% confidence interval: 5.081-91.672). CONCLUSIONS: PCT values less than 2.03 ng/mL on POD 3 is an excellent negative predictor of IAIs, which may ensure a safe early discharge after gastric cancer surgery.

Expert consensus on multidisciplinary management of intra-abdominal infections / 中华外科杂志

Intra-abdominal infections(IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and complications, which usually need multidisciplinary management including surgeons, intensivists, infectious disease experts, microbiologists, and clinical pharmacists. Based on international and domestic guidelines and recent advances, a number of experts' statements of consensus, with a problem-oriented approach, were made on the cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs such as early recognition, etiology identification, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Main recommendations include concepts of intra-abdominal infection, pathoqen diagnosis precautions; surgical intervention principles and strategies of specific causes including acute appendicitis, upper gastrointestinal perforation, lower gastrointestinal perforation, acute biliary infection, liver abscess, severe acute pancreatitis, pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula, anastomotic leakage, gastrointestinal perforation, as well as perforation due to endoscopic procedure etc.; principles of antimicrobial therapy, dosage of antibiotics in specific population and pathophysiological state; and systematic support of severe infection such as early resuscitation and nutrition support.

The quality assessment of intraabdominal infection guidelines/consensuses in 2 decades - which are better and any changes?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intraabdominal infection (IAI) is a common and important disease worldwide. An increasing number of related guidelines/consensuses have been published in recent years, the quality evaluation for these guidelines/consensuses is necessary to identify lower-quality documents and explore the quality distribution in different time range and areas in this field. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument tool was adopted to assess the quality of IAI guidelines/consensuses by 3 researchers independently. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) among the researchers were retrieved to reflect reliability. The quality differences of these guidelines/consensuses issued before and after May 2009, both international and non-international, were compared by a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Fourteen IAI guidelines/consensuses published in English were obtained following a literature search. The ICCs among the researchers were all above 0.75, indicating satisfactory reliability. This outcome showed that the overall quality of these guidelines/consensuses was mediocre and considered acceptable in all items. A few guidelines/consensuses were better in their scientific and methodological characteristics than the others. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the scores between the guidelines/consensuses issued before and after May 2009 or between international vs regional guidelines/consensuses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the IAI guidelines/consensuses was generally acceptable and applicable, with a few deficiencies. Therefore, continuous improvement is essential. The guideline assessment tools should be applied in guideline/consensus development both widely and strictly to improve the methodological quality.

[Interpretation of domestic and foreign guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of abdominal infection].

In recent years, both international and domestic societies have published several guidelines on diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal infection. Due to the different evidence and the different methods adopted in the actual formulation of the guidelines, the recommendations of each version of the guidelines are different. Three international guidelines with great impacts were reviewed, including Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America published in 2010, The Surgical Infection Society revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection published in 2017, and The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective by the World Society of Emergent Surgery. The above guidelines were used to compare with the Chinese guidelines on the diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal infection (2019) which was published in early 2020. Recommendations on the disease severity classification, source control, and antimicrobial therapy are further explained in order to provide guidelines for clinicians.

[Progress in the treatment of intra-abdominal anaerobic infection].

Most abdominal infections are mixed infections caused by aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobic infections are characterized by rancid secretions or abscess formation. Early implementation of source control is the key in the treatment of abdominal anaerobic infections. Damage control should be followed as one of the principles of surgical treatment. As the in vitro isolation and culture of anaerobic bacteria as well as its drug sensitivity test are time-consuming and sometimes inaccurate, the treatment of anaerobic bacteria infection is mostly empirical. Anti-infective therapy should be employed once anaerobic bacteria infection is confirmed. Ertapenem, Mosifloxacin, and Cefoperazone-sulbactam can be used for first-line monotherapy, while combination therapy can use second- or third-generation Cephalosporin, Quinolones plus Nitroimidazoles. Nutritional support and anti-shock treatment should not be neglected when implementing surgical control of infection source and antimicrobial therapy. Considering the increasing drug resistance of anaerobic bacteria, and the higher drug resistance rate in China as compared to western countries, the choice of antibiotics should be made rationally and based on epidemiological characteristics of anaerobic bacteria in different regions.

Current progress of source control in the management of intra-abdominal infections.

Intra-abdominal infection (IAI) is a deadly condition in which the outcome is associated with urgent diagnosis, assessment and management, including fluid resuscitation, antibiotic administration while obtaining further laboratory results, attaining precise measurements of hemodynamic status, and pursuing source control. This last item makes abdominal sepsis a unique treatment challenge. Delayed or inadequate source control is an independent predictor of poor outcomes and recognizing source control failure is often difficult or impossible. Further complicating issue in the debate is surrounding the timing, adequacy, and procedures of source control. This review evaluated and summarized the current approach and challenges in IAI management, which are the future research directions.

Pacientes con infección intrabdominal en la unidad de cuidados intensivos / Patients with Intrabdominal Infection in the Intensive Care Unit

RESUMEN Los pacientes con infección intrabdominal en unidad de cuidados intensivos representan un reto diagnóstico y terapéutico, tanto en el mundo como en Cuba y es responsable del aumento de un periodo de invalidez transitoria y de mortalidad de una parte de los pacientes. El objetivo del artículo fue profundizar en los conocimientos actuales sobre el tratamiento de la infección intrabdominal en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Se realizó revisión tipo exploratorio-descriptivo para profundizar el tema y se consultaron fuentes primarias y secundarias de información de las bases de datos Scopus, Medline, Cochrane, Hinary y Redalyc bajo los criterios de sus revisores. La infección intrabdominal en los pacientes bajo cuidados intensivos suscita un mal pronóstico, por lo que requiere de un diagnóstico oportuno y un tratamiento eficaz. Los índices de mortalidad en estos enfermos apenas han decrecido a pesar de los avances tecnológicos(AU)

ABSTRACT Patients with intraabdominal infection in the intensive care unit represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, both in Cuba and worldwide. Such condition is responsible for the increase in the period of temporary disability and mortality in part of the patients. The aim of the article was to deepen the current knowledge on treatment of intraabdominal infection in the intensive care unit. An exploratory-descriptive review was carried out to deepen the subject and primary and secondary sources of information were consulted from the Scopus, Medline, Cochrane, Hinary and Redalyc databases, following the criteria of their reviewers. Intraabdominal infection in patients under intensive care presents poor prognosis, which requires prompt diagnosis and effective treatment. Mortality rates in these patients have barely decreased despite technological advances(AU)

Management of intra-abdominal-infections: 2017 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines summary focused on remote areas and low-income nations.

BACKGROUND: Most remote areas have restricted access to healthcare services and are too small and remote to sustain specialist services. In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) published guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections. Many hospitals, especially those in remote areas, continue to face logistical barriers, leading to an overall poorer adherence to international guidelines. METHODS: The aim of this paper is to report and amend the 2017 WSES guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections, extending these recommendations for remote areas and low-income countries. A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE databases was conducted covering the period up until June 2020. RESULTS: The critical shortages of healthcare workers and material resources in remote areas require the use of a robust triage system. A combination of abdominal signs and symptoms with early warning signs may be used to screen patients needing immediate acute care surgery. A tailored diagnostic step-up approach based on the hospital's resources is recommended. Ultrasound and plain X-ray may be useful diagnostic tools in remote areas. The source of infection should be totally controlled as soon as possible. CONCLUSIONS: The cornerstones of effective treatment for intra-abdominal infections in remote areas include early diagnosis, prompt resuscitation, early source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Standardization in applying the guidelines is mandatory to adequately manage intra-abdominal infections.

Time to clearance of abdominal septic focus and mortality in patients with sepsis. / Tempo para evacuação de foco séptico abdominal e mortalidade em portadores de sepse.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between time to focus clearance and hospital mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: This was an observational, single-center study with a retrospective analysis of the time to clearance of abdominal septic focus. Patients were classified according to the time to focus clearance into an early (≤ 12 hours) or delayed (> 12 hours) group. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were evaluated. There was no association between time to focus clearance and hospital mortality (≤ 12 hours versus > 12 hours): 52.3% versus 52.9%, with p = 0.137. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in hospital mortality among patients with sepsis or septic shock who had an infectious focus evacuated before or after 12 hours after the diagnosis of sepsis.

Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and cause a significant worldwide burden per year. Since the concept of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) was proposed in 1905, it has been widely used in the surgery practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs has always been controversial. Our objective is to identify whether it is beneficial to flush the abdominal cavity with saline in IAIs surgery through a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Electronic databases (including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, etc) and clinical trial registry platforms will be searched from inception to 8 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised clinical trials and cohort studies comparing IOPL and suction alone in IAIs will be included. The primary outcomes are mortality and abscess rate. Two independent reviewers will screen literature, collect data and assess risk of bias of included studies. Discussion or a third reviewer will be referred for any disagreements. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of the evidence. We will perform meta-analysis using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias will be conducted if data are enough. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to local and international policy makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019145109.

Global Perspectives in Controversies Related to the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infections.

Background: Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) remain a substantial cause of worldwide morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost burden. The World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS) was organized to help improve global outcomes from surgical infections. An initial project for the WSIS was to assess how surgeons treat common IAI in their regions. Methods: A 10-item questionnaire was distributed to members of four surgical societies dedicated to the study of surgical infections. Questions were related to common treatment decisions in the management of IAI, with the intention of identifying differences and potential controversies in patient care. Responses were analyzed by comparing percentages with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Globally, management was relatively similar for peritoneal irrigation (most commonly with saline or other crystalloid: China, 83.2% ± 5.8%; North America, 93.2% ± 6.4%; Europe, 85.7% ± 25.9%; and Latin America, 71.8% ± 6.9%). More varied responses were seen for the management of specific disease states; for instance, for cholangitis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatic interventions were more common in North America (83.1% ± 9.6%) and less common in China (28.1% ± 7.0%). For appendiceal abscesses, percutaneous drainage and antibiotic treatment was most common in North America (93.2% ± 6.4%) and least common in Latin America (19.6% ± 6.1%). Additionally, the management of fascial and wound closures were different by region. Vacuum-assisted wound closure after fascial closure was utilized commonly in North America (32.2% ± 11.9%), Europe (28.6% ± 33.5%), and Latin America (27.6% ± 6.9%), however, was less commonly utilized in China (9.9% ± 4.4%), where there was higher rate of primary skin closure (85.7% ± 5.4%). Conclusion: Through its partnership with other surgical infection societies, the WSIS aims to develop evidence-based guidelines for more consistent pattern of IAI management globally. Delving further into why their practices differ may help improve worldwide outcomes.

Can the Cecal Ligation and Puncture Model Be Repurposed To Better Inform Therapy in Human Sepsis?

A recent report by the National Institutes of Health on sepsis research has implied there is a trend to move away from mouse models of sepsis. The most commonly used animal model to study the pathogenesis of human sepsis is cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) in mice. The model has been the mainstay of sepsis research for decades and continues to be considered the gold standard to inform novel pathways of sepsis physiology and its therapeutic direction. As there have been many criticisms of the model, particularly regarding its relevance to human disease, how this model might be repurposed to be more reflective of the human condition begs discussion. In this piece, we compare and contrast the mouse microbiome of the CLP model to the emerging science of the microbiome of human sepsis and discuss the relevance for mice to harbor the specific pathogens present in the human microbiome during sepsis, as well as an underlying disease process to mimic the characteristics of those patients with undesirable outcomes. How to repurpose this model to incorporate these "human factors" is discussed in detail and suggestions offered.

Tempo para evacuação de foco séptico abdominal e mortalidade em portadores de sepse / Time to clearance of abdominal septic focus and mortality in patients with sepsis

RESUMO Objetivo: Aferir a relação entre tempo para evacuação de foco e mortalidade hospitalar em portadores de sepse e choque séptico. Métodos: Estudo observacional, unicêntrico, com análise retrospectiva do tempo para evacuação de foco séptico abdominal. Os pacientes foram classificados conforme o tempo para evacuação do foco em grupo precoce (≤ 12 horas) ou tardio (> 12 horas). Resultados: Foram avaliados 135 pacientes. Não houve associação entre tempo para evacuação do foco e mortalidade hospitalar (≤ 12 horas versus > 12 horas): 52,3% versus 52,9%, com p = 0,137. Conclusão: Não houve diferença na mortalidade hospitalar entre pacientes com sepse ou choque séptico que tiveram foco infeccioso evacuado antes ou após 12 horas do diagnóstico de sepse.

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the relationship between time to focus clearance and hospital mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Methods: This was an observational, single-center study with a retrospective analysis of the time to clearance of abdominal septic focus. Patients were classified according to the time to focus clearance into an early (≤ 12 hours) or delayed (> 12 hours) group. Results: A total of 135 patients were evaluated. There was no association between time to focus clearance and hospital mortality (≤ 12 hours versus > 12 hours): 52.3% versus 52.9%, with p = 0.137. Conclusion: There was no difference in hospital mortality among patients with sepsis or septic shock who had an infectious focus evacuated before or after 12 hours after the diagnosis of sepsis.