脓毒症的病原菌分布、药敏分析及优选抗菌 药物策略
Distribution of Pathogens, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Analysis and Optimal Antibacterial Drug Strategy in Sepsis
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2026.1641657, PDF,   
作者: 余 玲, 张 鑫, 张春容*:重庆医科大学附属永川医院急诊医学科,重庆
关键词: 脓毒症病原菌药敏抗菌药物Sepsis Pathogens Antimicrobial Susceptibility Antibacterial Agents
摘要: 目的:为临床医师提供脓毒症的有效抗感染治疗经验。方法:回顾性收集2024年10月~2025年3月重庆市永川区的三家医院的脓毒症病例,对符合排除及纳入标准的608例脓毒症患者的病原菌及药敏结果进行分析。结果:导致脓毒症的主要病原菌是大肠埃希氏菌(27.6%)、肺炎克雷伯菌(13%)、鲍曼不动杆菌(7%)、金黄色葡萄球菌(6%)、铜绿假单胞菌(5.6%),以格兰氏阴性杆菌为主。大肠埃希氏菌敏感率 > 95%的抗菌药物是阿米卡星、头孢替坦、头孢哌酮钠/舒巴坦、替加环素及多利培南、厄他培南、美罗培南、亚胺培南;肺炎克雷伯菌未出现敏感率 > 95%的抗菌药物,95% > 敏感率 ≥ 90%的抗菌药物是阿米卡星、替加环素及多利培南、厄他培南、美罗培南、亚胺培南;鲍曼不动杆菌未出现敏感率 ≥ 90%的抗菌药物,90% > 敏感率 > 85%的抗菌药物是替加环素;金黄色葡萄球菌敏感率达100%的抗菌药物是庆大霉素、替加环素、万古霉素及喹努普汀/达福普汀;铜绿假单胞菌的敏感率 ≥ 90%的抗菌药物是阿米卡星、妥布霉素、庆大霉素。结论:导致脓毒症的主要病原菌是革氏阴性杆菌,抗感染治疗脓毒症优选抗革兰氏阴性杆菌为主的抗菌药物,推荐经验性优选替加环素、阿米卡星、多利培南、厄他培南、美罗培南、亚胺培南。
Abstract: Objective: To provide a reference for effective anti-infective treatment for clinicians managing sepsis. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on sepsis cases from three hospitals in Yongchuan District, Chongqing, from October 2024 to March 2025. A total of 608 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included, and their pathogen distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility were analyzed. Results: The main pathogens causing sepsis were predominantly Gram-negative bacilli, including Escherichia coli (27.6%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (13%), Acinetobacter baumannii (7%), Staphylococcus aureus (6%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.6%). The antimicrobial agents with a susceptibility rate of >95% for Escherichia coli were amikacin, cefotetan, cefoperazone/sulbactam, tigecycline, and doripenem, ertapenem, meropenem, and imipenem. No antimicrobial agents with a susceptibility rate of ≥95% were found for Klebsiella pneumoniae; agents with a susceptibility rate of 90%~95% included amikacin, tigecycline, doripenem, ertapenem, meropenem, and imipenem. No antimicrobial agents with a susceptibility rate of ≥90% were found for Acinetobacter baumannii; the only agent with a susceptibility rate of 85%~90% was tigecycline. The antimicrobial agents with a 100% susceptibility rate for Staphylococcus aureus were gentamicin, tigecycline, vancomycin, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. The antimicrobial agents with a susceptibility rate of ≥90% for Pseudomonas aeruginosa were amikacin, tobramycin, and gentamicin. Conclusion: The main pathogens causing sepsis are Gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrobial therapy for sepsis should provide coverage against Gram-negative bacilli. Tigecycline, amikacin, doripenem, ertapenem, meropenem, and imipenem are recommended as empirical antimicrobial agents of choice.
文章引用:余玲, 张鑫, 张春容. 脓毒症的病原菌分布、药敏分析及优选抗菌 药物策略[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(4): 3881-3889. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.1641657

参考文献

[1] Gul, F., Arslantas, M.K., Cinel, I. and Kumar, A. (2017) Changing Definitions of Sepsis. Turkish Journal of Anesthesia and Reanimation, 45, 129-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C.M., French, C., et al. (2021) Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Critical Care Medicine, 49, 1974-1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C.M., French, C., et al. (2021) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Medicine, 47, 1181-1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Singer, M., Deutschman, C.S., Seymour, C.W., Shankar-Hari, M., Annane, D., Bauer, M., et al. (2016) The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 315, 801-810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Halici, Z., Cadirci, E., Polat, G. and Ugan, R.A. (2019) Sepsis and Septic Shock: Current Treatment Strategies and New Approaches. The Eurasian Journal of Medicine, 49, 53-58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Gupta, S., Sakhuja, A., Kumar, G., McGrath, E., Nanchal, R.S. and Kashani, K.B. (2016) Culture-Negative Severe Sepsis. Chest, 150, 1251-1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Rudd, K.E., Johnson, S.C., Agesa, K.M., Shackelford, K.A., Tsoi, D., Kievlan, D.R., et al. (2020) Global, Regional, and National Sepsis Incidence and Mortality, 1990-2017: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 395, 200-211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Rhee, C., Dantes, R., Epstein, L., Murphy, D.J., Seymour, C.W., Iwashyna, T.J., et al. (2017) Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals Using Clinical vs Claims Data, 2009-2014. JAMA, 318, 1241-1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] von Groote, T. and Meersch-Dini, M. (2022) Biomarkers for the Prediction and Judgement of Sepsis and Sepsis Complications: A Step towards Precision Medicine? Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11, Article 5782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Gotts, J.E. and Matthay, M.A. (2016) Sepsis: Pathophysiology and Clinical Management. BMJ, 353, i1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Gyawali, B., Ramakrishna, K. and Dhamoon, A.S. (2019) Sepsis: The Evolution in Definition, Pathophysiology, and Management. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] 李曙光, 鲁炳怀, 褚云卓, 张嵘, 曾吉, 苏丹虹, 卓超, 金炎, 徐修礼, 廖康, 胡志东, 王辉. 2020-2021年中国10所教学医院院内感染常见病原菌分布和耐药监测[J]. 中华检验医志, 2024, 47(6): 619-628.
[13] Yaghoubi, S., Zekiy, A.O., Krutova, M., Gholami, M., Kouhsari, E., Sholeh, M., et al. (2021) Tigecycline Antibacterial Activity, Clinical Effectiveness, and Mechanisms and Epidemiology of Resistance: Narrative Review. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41, 1003-1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Raaijmakers, J., Schildkraut, J.A., Hoefsloot, W. and van Ingen, J. (2021) The Role of Amikacin in the Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 22, 1961-1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Ramirez, M. and Tolmasky, M. (2017) Amikacin: Uses, Resistance, and Prospects for Inhibition. Molecules, 22, Article 2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Hurley, J.C., Miller, G.H. and Smith, A.L. (1995) Mechanism of Amikacin Resistance in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Isolates from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 22, 331-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]