Next Article in Journal
Expanded Archaeal Genomes Shed New Light on the Evolution of Isoprenoid Biosynthesis
Previous Article in Journal
Biosynthesis Progress of High-Energy-Density Liquid Fuels Derived from Terpenes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET-CT in the Management of Febrile Neutropenia: A Retrospective Cohort from a Tertiary University Hospital and a Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/microorganisms12040705
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections Presenting with Septic Shock in Neutropenic Cancer Patients: Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy

by
Cristina Royo-Cebrecos
1,
Júlia Laporte-Amargós
2,*,
Marta Peña
3,
Isabel Ruiz-Camps
4,
Carolina Garcia-Vidal
5,
Edson Abdala
6,
Chiara Oltolini
7,
Murat Akova
8,
Miguel Montejo
9,
Malgorzata Mikulska
10,
Pilar Martín-Dávila
11,
Fabián Herrera
12,
Oriol Gasch
13,
Lubos Drgona
14,
Hugo Manuel Paz Morales
15,
Anne-Sophie Brunel
16,
Estefanía García
17,
Burcu Isler
18,
Winfried V. Kern
19,
Zaira R. Palacios-Baena
20,
Guillermo Maestr de la Calle
21,
Maria Milagro Montero
22,
Souha S. Kanj
23,
Oguz R. Sipahi
24,
Sebnem Calik
25,
Ignacio Márquez-Gómez
26,
Jorge I. Marin
27,
Marisa Z. R. Gomes
28,
Philipp Hemmatii
29,
Rafael Araos
30,
Maddalena Peghin
31,
Jose L. Del Pozo
32,
Lucrecia Yáñez
33,
Robert Tilley
34,
Adriana Manzur
35,
Andrés Novo
36,
Jordi Carratalà
2,37,38 and
Carlota Gudiol
2,37,38,39,*,† on behalf of the IRONIC Study Groupadd Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Nostra Senyora de Meritxell, SAAS, AD700 Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra
2
Infectious Diseases Department, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, 08907 Barcelona, Spain
3
Haematology Department, Institute Català d’Oncologia (ICO)–Hospital Duran i Reynals, IDIBELL, 08908 Barcelona, Spain
4
Infectious Diseases Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
5
Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Clínic i Provincial, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
6
Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, Univesity of São Paulo, Sao Paulo 01246, Brazil
7
Unit of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, 20132 Milan, Italy
8
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
9
Infectious Diseases Unit, Cruces University Hospital, 48903 Bilbao, Spain
10
Division of Infectious Diseases, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa (DISSAL), 16132 Genoa, Italy
11
Infectious Diseases Department, Ramon y Cajal Hospital, 28034 Madrid, Spain
12
Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas (CEMIC), Buenos Aires C1430EFA, Argentina
13
Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT-CERCA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08208 Sabadell, Spain
14
Oncohematology Department, National Cancer Institute, Comenius University, 81499 Bratislava, Slovakia
15
Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba 81520-060, Brazil
16
Infectious Diseases and Medicine Department, Lausanne University Hospital, CHUV, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
17
Haematology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital-IMIBIC-UCO, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
18
Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Istanbul Education and Research Hospital, 34668 Istanbul, Turkey
19
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, 79110 Freiburg, Germany
20
Unit of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (IBIS), Virgen Macarena University Hospital, 41013 Seville, Spain
21
Infectious Diseases Unit, Instituto de Investigación Hospital “12 de Octubre” (i + 12), School of Medicine, “12 de Octubre” University Hospital, Universidad Complutense, 28041 Madrid, Spain
22
Infectious Pathology and Antimicrobials Research Group (IPAR), Infectious Diseases Service, Hospital del Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigations Mèdiques (IMIM), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), CEXS-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
23
Infectious Diseases Division, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 110236, Lebanon
24
Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, 35040 Izmir, Turkey
25
Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Health Science Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, 35170 Izmir, Turkey
26
Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Regional de Málaga, 29010 Málaga, Spain
27
Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Department, Clínica Maraya, Manizales 170001-17, Colombia
28
Hospital Federal dos Servidores do Estado, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Ministério da Saúde, Rio de Janeiro 20221-161, Brazil
29
Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité University Medical School, 10117 Berlin, Germany
30
Instituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago de Chile 12461, Chile
31
Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria-ASST-Sette Laghi, 21100 Varese, Italy
32
Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Unit, Navarra University Clinic, 31008 Pamplona, Spain
33
Haematology Department, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, 39008 Santander, Spain
34
Microbiology Department, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK
35
Infectious Diseases, Hospital Rawson, San Juan J5400, Argentina
36
Haematology Department, Son Espases University Hospital, 07120 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
37
Faculty of Medicine, Bellvitge Campus, University of Barcelona, carrer de la Feixa Llarga, s/n, 08907 Barcelona, Spain
38
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain
39
Infectious Diseases Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Duran i Reynals Hospital, IDIBELL, 08908 Barcelona, Spain
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
All authors of the IRONIC Study Group are listed in the Acknowledgments.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(4), 705; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040705
Submission received: 15 January 2024 / Revised: 19 March 2024 / Accepted: 25 March 2024 / Published: 30 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges in the Management of Infectious Complications in Neutropenic Cancer Patients)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This large, multicenter, retrospective cohort study including onco-hematological neutropenic patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection (PABSI) found that among 1213 episodes, 411 (33%) presented with septic shock. The presence of solid tumors (33.3% vs. 20.2%, p < 0.001), a high-risk Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) index score (92.6% vs. 57.4%; p < 0.001), pneumonia (38% vs. 19.2% p < 0.001), and infection due to multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa (MDRPA) (33.8% vs. 21.1%, p < 0.001) were statistically significantly higher in patients with septic shock compared to those without. Patients with septic shock were more likely to receive inadequate empirical antibiotic therapy (IEAT) (21.7% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.020) and to present poorer outcomes, including a need for ICU admission (74% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (49.1% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001), and higher 7-day and 30-day case fatality rates (58.2% vs. 12%, p < 0.001, and 74% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001, respectively). Risk factors for 30-day case fatality rate in patients with septic shock were orotracheal intubation, IEAT, infection due to MDRPA, and persistent PABSI. Therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and BSI from the urinary tract were associated with improved survival. Carbapenems were the most frequent IEAT in patients with septic shock, and the use of empirical combination therapy showed a tendency towards improved survival. Our findings emphasize the need for tailored management strategies in this high-risk population.

1. Introduction

Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic cancer patients. A shift in the etiology of BSI to Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) as well as an increase in antibiotic resistance has been reported in neutropenic cancer patients in recent decades [1,2,3,4]. Among these pathogens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa has historically been highlighted as a major contributor to severe sepsis and increased mortality in neutropenic cancer patients [5,6,7,8]. Thus, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in P. aeruginosa is of special concern since inadequate empirical antibiotic therapy (IEAT) is associated with increased mortality in this setting [9,10,11,12]. P. aeruginosa is also well known for its ability to form biofilms, which significantly contribute to chronic infections and septic episodes [13,14]. These biofilms serve as protective environments, enhancing bacterial survival and resistance to host immune defenses as well as antimicrobial treatments [15,16].
Despite the above-mentioned epidemiological changes, the most up-to-date antibiotic guidelines for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients continue to recommend an empirical β-lactam treatment that includes cefepime, piperacillin–tazobactam, and meropenem [17,18,19]. Among patients administered this treatment, some authors have reported high rates of IEAT in neutropenic cancer patients with BSI. Chumbita et al. recently published the results of a multicenter study involving 700 episodes of BSI in neutropenic hematological patients, in which they found that 34.7% of the isolated GNB were resistant to at least one of the three β-lactams recommended in febrile neutropenia guidelines [20]. Among episodes caused by GNB, 16.6% received IEAT, and this rate increased to 46.3% when the infection was caused by an MDRGNB. The same authors published a retrospective study involving 280 episodes of PABSI in hematologic neutropenic patients, in which 36.1% of the isolates were also resistant to at least one of the β-lactam antibiotics recommended in these international guidelines [21]. In addition, even when international guidelines were widely followed, 16.8% of patients received IEAT and 23.6% received inadequate β-lactam empirical antibiotic treatment.
Septic shock is an uncontrolled systemic response to infection that can quickly lead to multiple organ dysfunction and, ultimately, death if not promptly and effectively managed [22]. The need for immediate and targeted treatment lies in the patient’s survival and in mitigating long-term sequelae [23]. Furthermore, the proper treatment of infections and septic shock in neutropenic patients contributes to preserving the integrity of the weakened immune system, which is essential for ongoing cancer management and the patient’s successful recovery. Therefore, early identification, prompt adequate empirical antimicrobial therapy, and efficient hemodynamic support are fundamental pillars in caring for these vulnerable patients, aiming to improve their survival rates and long-term quality of life [24].
There is scarce information regarding the clinical features and outcomes of neutropenic patients with BSI presenting with septic shock. In a large study involving 1563 neutropenic patients with BSI, 257 (16%) presented with septic shock, and the great majority of the infections were caused by GNB (81%) [25]. IEAT (17.5%) was identified as an independent risk factor for mortality, whereas the empirical combination of β-lactam and amikacin was found to be protective.
The current study aimed to assess the clinical features and outcomes of P. aeruginosa bloodstream infection (PABSI) in neutropenic patients presenting with septic shock, identify the risk factors for 30-day case fatality rate, and evaluate the impact of IEAT.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

The current study is part of the IRONIC project: a large, retrospective, multicenter, international cohort study conducted at 34 centers in 12 countries from 1 January 2006 to 31 May 2018. The number of participating centers and the number of patients recruited at each one have been published previously [26].

2.2. Participants

The study included adult patients (≥18 years) with solid tumors and hematological diseases, including hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, who suffered from at least one episode of PABSI during the study period. Each episode of PABSI identified in the same patient was considered and documented as a distinct episode if it occurred after an interval exceeding four weeks from the previous episode. Patients were followed for the following 30 days from BSI onset.

2.3. Variables

Data regarding baseline and epidemiological characteristics, clinical features, microbiological findings, and outcomes were recorded. Empirical antibiotic therapy was defined as the antibiotic administered before the definitive susceptibility results were received. Adequate empirical antibiotic therapy was considered when patients received at least one in vitro active antibiotic against the P. aeruginosa isolate. IEAT was considered when the patient did not receive any empirical antibiotic with in vitro activity or an empirical antibiotic therapy was lacking. In addition, in patients with pneumonia, empirical monotherapy with an aminoglycoside was considered inadequate. The antibiotics were uniformly administered at the current standard doses for the treatment of febrile neutropenia [17,19]. In case of renal impairment, the doses were adjusted accordingly.

2.4. Outcomes

Episodes of PABSI occurring in patients with septic shock were compared to those developing in patients without septic shock. Risk factors associated with overall 30-day case fatality rate were investigated in patients with septic shock.

2.5. Microbiological Studies

Clinical samples were processed at the microbiology laboratories of each participating center by standard operating procedures. P. aeruginosa was identified using standard microbiological techniques at each center. In vitro susceptibility was determined according to the EUCAST recommendations [27], except one center from Argentina, the Lebanese center, where the CLSI breakpoints were used, and the center in the UK where the BSAC recommendations were used before 2016. P. aeruginosa isolate phenotypes were classified as multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively resistant (XDR) following the definitions by Magiorakos et al. [28].

2.6. Definitions

Neutropenia and severe neutropenia were defined as an absolute neutrophil count below 0.5 × 109 cells/mm and 0.1 × 109 cells/mm, respectively. Septic shock was considered as a clinically defined subset of sepsis cases, wherein, despite adequate fluid resuscitation, patients had hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial blood pressure above 65 mm Hg and had an elevated serum lactate concentration of more than 2 mmol/L [22,29]. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score was calculated as described previously [30]. Prior corticosteroid treatment was defined as the administration of ≥20 mg of prednisone, or equivalent dosing, for at least 4 weeks within 30 days of BSI onset.
Comorbidities were defined as the presence of one or more of the following diseases: diabetes mellitus, chronic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal disease, chronic hepatic disease, and cerebrovascular disease.
BSI sources were established using standard US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria [31]. Additionally, an endogenous source of BSI was considered in neutropenic patients with mild or absent gastrointestinal symptoms, in whom gut translocation was suspected. Patients with severe (grade III–IV) extensive mucositis involving the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract were considered to present neutropenic enterocolitis. Mucositis was diagnosed in patients with ulcerative lesions involving only the oral cavity. Patients with no clear source of BSI due to mixed clinical presentations and/or lack of adequate complementary diagnostic procedures were considered to have an unknown source of BSI.
BSI was considered to be persistent if blood cultures remained positive after 48 h of adequate antibiotic therapy. The 7-day and 30-day case fatality rates were defined as death from any cause within 7 days and 30 days of BSI onset, respectively.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

To characterize the cohort, categorical variables were represented as case counts and percentages, while continuous variables were summarized as either mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). We employed Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate, for comparing continuous variables. For assessing the relationship between categorical variables, Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s χ2 test was utilized. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined at a threshold of p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was carried out using the stepwise logistic regression model within the SPSS software package, version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

2.8. Ethics

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Bellvitge University Hospital [local reference number PR408/17] and by the local research ethics committees at the participating centers. It was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. The need for informed consent was waived by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee due to the study’s retrospective design.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical Characteristics

Of 1217 episodes of PABSI, 1213 were eligible for analysis, of which 411 (33.8%) presented with septic shock. The epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients included in the study are detailed in Table 1. Septic shock was significantly more common in males than in females (66.7% vs. 59.2%; p = 0.012), in patients with solid tumors compared with hematologic malignancies (33.2% vs. 20.2%; p < 0.001), in patients with a high-risk MASCC index score (92.6% vs. 57.4%, p < 0.001), in patients with a urinary catheter in place (26% vs. 12.8%; p < 0.001), and in patients with BSI acquired outside the hospital (59.2% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.006). Pneumonia as the source of BSI was significantly associated with septic shock (38% vs. 19.2% p < 0.001), whereas endogenous and perineal BSIs were less likely to present with septic shock (41% vs. 29.9%; p < 0.001, and 3.6% vs. 1.2% p < 0.001, respectively). Infections due to MDRPA and XDRPA were more frequently associated with septic shock (33.8% vs. 21.1.1%, p < 0.001, and 27.5% vs. 15.3%, p < 0.001, respectively).

3.2. Initial Empirical Antibiotic Therapy and Clinical Outcomes

Table 2 displays the initial empirical antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes of patients compared by groups. Patients with septic shock were more likely to receive empirical combination therapy (45.3% vs. 34.9%; p < 0.001), mainly β-lactam plus aminoglycoside, whereas patients without septic shock received monotherapy more frequently (65.1 vs. 54.7%, p < 0.001). The rate of IEAT was significantly higher in patients with septic shock (21.7% vs. 16.2%; p = 0.020) and in those with infection due to MDRPA and XDRPA strains (68% vs. 16%; p < 0.001, and 54.8% vs. 11.6%; p < 0.001, respectively). The antibiotics most frequently deemed inadequate were carbapenems and piperacillin–tazobactam in both groups. Patients with septic shock presented poor outcomes, with a higher need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation (74% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001, and 49.1% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001, respectively) and higher rates of persistent BSI (18.3% vs. 7.7%; p < 0.001). Overall, the 7-day and 30-day case fatality rates were 27.7% and 40.3%, which were significantly higher in patients with septic shock than in those without (58.2% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001, and 74% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001, respectively).

3.3. Risk Factors Associated with Overall Case Fatality Rate

The risk factors associated with 30-day mortality are described in Table 3. Mechanical ventilation (OR 9; 95% CI 4.72–17.18; p < 0.001), infection due to MDRPA (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.00–3.90; p = 0.048), IEAT (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.01–5.88; p = 0.047), and persistent BSI (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.12–5.56; p = 0.026) were independently associated with increased mortality. Conversely, BSI from the urinary tract (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07–0.99; p = 0.047) and the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19–0.58; p < 0.001) were independently associated with improved survival. Empirical combination therapy showed a tendency toward lower mortality.

4. Discussion

This extensive, international, multicenter cohort of neutropenic cancer patients with PABSI showed that septic shock was frequent in this setting and that it was more common in patients with solid tumors and in those with pneumonia. The rates of multidrug resistance and the administration of IEAT were higher in patients with septic shock and were associated with poor outcomes, including mechanical ventilation and early 7-day and overall 30-day case fatality rates.
Septic shock was more frequent in males, in patients with solid tumors, and in those with pneumonia [32]. These findings are in line with previous research that suggests a gender-based discrepancy in infection-related outcomes and tumor-specific immune response profiles [33,34,35]. The most frequent underlying solid tumor in our cohort was lung cancer, which is more prevalent in males and is a well-known risk factor for P. aeruginosa pneumonia [36,37,38]. Kang et al. established a notable correlation between pneumonia and severe sepsis or septic shock, finding a 2.7-fold increase in pneumonia in the severe-sepsis group, particularly when GNB were involved [38]. More recently, our group identified an increased risk of septic shock and death in patients with bacteremic P. aeruginosa pneumonia compared to other sources of PABSI [36].
Of note, infection due to MDRPA and XDRPA was significantly higher in patients with septic shock. Furthermore, multidrug resistance was independently associated with increased overall 30-day case fatality rate in this group of patients. This is of special concern because antibiotic resistance has remarkably increased in recent decades among isolates of P. aeruginosa causing severe infections in neutropenic cancer patients, and the administration of adequate empirical antibiotic therapy in this setting may be compromised [8,11]. Future research could explore the interplay between antimicrobial resistance at the single-cell level and within biofilms not addressed in our study, building upon previous studies to elucidate comprehensive mechanisms of resistance [39,40,41].
Importantly, we found that patients with septic shock were more likely to receive IEAT and, additionally, IEAT was identified as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality. It is important to highlight that the most frequent inadequate antibiotics prescribed in patients with septic shock were carbapenems (40.4%). This finding underscores the rationale for using other non-carbapenem β-lactams empirically, including the more recently commercially available ceftolozane–tazobactam and cefiderocol in selected patients [42,43,44].
In the current era of widespread antimicrobial resistance, the potential benefit of using empirical combination therapy gains importance. In this regard, a recent study involving neutropenic hematological patients with Gram-negative BSI found that empirical therapy with a broad-spectrum β-lactam plus a short-course aminoglycoside regimen significantly improved the 7-day case fatality rate compared to β-lactam monotherapy, with no significant renal function impairment [45]. In this study, the overall rate of septic shock was 19.3% and P. aeruginosa was the second etiological agent of BSI. Chumbita et al. reported a high mortality rate (54.9%) in neutropenic patients with BSI who received IEAT, whilst reporting that the empirical use of a β-lactam plus amikacin was protective against a fatal outcome [25]. Additionally, in research included in the IRONIC project that analyzed the episodes of bacteremic pneumonia due to P. aeruginosa, we found that IEAT was an independent risk factor for increased 30-day case fatality, whereas the use of an appropriate empirical combination treatment was associated with improved survival [36]. In the current study, the empirical combination of a β-lactam plus an aminoglycoside showed a tendency towards a lower 30-day case fatality rate (p = 0.072).
In addition to infection due to MDRPA and IEAT, mechanical ventilation and persistent BSI were also risk factors for mortality [46]. Patients requiring ICU admission and mechanical ventilation are critically ill patients who may develop life-threatening nosocomial complications. Interestingly, prior studies have reported lower ICU admission rates and less need for mechanical ventilation in patients with cancer [37,47,48]. These data raise a pertinent question regarding whether a more proactive and assertive approach to medical management of cancer patients with infectious complications, and particularly in cases of pneumonia, could have potentially resulted in better outcomes for these individuals. The high mortality rates observed in patients admitted to the ICU and the generally unfavorable long-term prognosis associated with malignancy have led to the perception that cancer patients may not be suitable candidates for ICU admission. Intriguingly, as many as 50% of cancer patients referred for ICU admission are finally not admitted, with clinicians citing them as either too healthy or too critically ill to derive significant benefits [49]. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that survival rates have notably improved in cancer patients who have experienced septic shock and pneumonia, suggesting that the presence of an underlying malignancy may no longer be the sole determinant of their prognosis [46,50,51,52]. In addition, another study revealed that in-hospital and ICU mortality rates, as well as the length of stay, did not significantly differ between septic shock patients with and without cancer [32]. These findings suggest that malignancies should no longer be seen as a barrier to ICU admission for this patient population [32,52]. Persistent BSI involves the inability to eradicate bacteria from the bloodstream, primarily due to intravascular or high-inoculum infections, or due to immune system defects, such as neutropenia.
Conversely, BSI from the urinary tract and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) emerged as protective factors in patients with septic shock. This underscores the critical role of neutrophil recovery in improving survival rates. The use of G-CSF in neutropenic hematological patients remains controversial due to the fear of triggering an uncontrolled blastic response [19]. However, in patients with life-threatening complications, such as BSI with septic shock, it seems reasonable to use G-CSF as adjuvant therapy along with prompt antibiotic treatment and adequate hemodynamic support [53,54,55].
The main strength of this study is that it is based on one of the largest cohorts of neutropenic cancer patients with PABSI with a multicenter international design that allows the generalization of the results. Nevertheless, this study also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The retrospective design and the inherent heterogeneity of the patient population may confound the associations observed. Secondly, the absence of randomization in this clinical study means that therapeutic selections may have been influenced by patient-related variables and by the clinical presentation. Ultimately, given the extended duration of the study, we cannot discount the potential influence of time-related factors on certain variables, such as mortality rates.
In conclusion, septic shock in neutropenic patients with PABSI was frequent, and it was more common in patients with solid tumors and in those with pneumonia. Multidrug resistance and IEAT were more frequent in these patients and were associated with poor outcomes. Carbapenems were the most frequent IEAT in patients with septic shock, and the use of empirical combination therapy showed a tendency towards improved survival. Our findings emphasize the need for tailored management strategies in this high-risk population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.R.-C. and C.G.; Methodology, C.R.-C. and C.G.; Validation, J.L.-A., M.P., I.R.-C., C.G.-V., E.A., C.O., M.A., M.M. (Miguel Montejo), M.M. (Malgorzata Mikulska), P.M.-D., F.H., O.G., L.D., H.M.P.M., A.-S.B., E.G., B.I., W.V.K., Z.R.P.-B., G.M.d.l.C., M.M.M., S.S.K., O.R.S., S.C., I.M.-G., J.I.M., M.Z.R.G., P.H., R.A., M.P., J.L.D.P., L.Y., R.T., A.M., A.N., J.C. and C.G.; Formal analysis, C.R.-C. and C.G.; Investigation, C.G.; Resources, C.G.; Data curation, C.R.-C., J.L.-A., M.P., I.R.-C., C.G.-V., E.A., C.O., M.A., M.M. (Miguel Montejo), M.M. (Malgorzata Mikulska), P.M.-D., F.H., O.G., L.D., H.M.P.M., A.-S.B., E.G., B.I., W.V.K., Z.R.P.-B., G.M.d.l.C., M.M.M., S.S.K., O.R.S., S.C., I.M.-G., J.I.M., M.Z.R.G., P.H., R.A., M.P., J.L.D.P., L.Y., R.T., A.M., A.N., J.C. and C.G.; Writing—original draft, C.R.-C.; Writing—review & editing, C.R.-C. and C.G.; Visualization, C.R.-C., J.L.-A., M.P., I.R.-C., C.G.-V., E.A., C.O., M.A., M.M. (Miguel Montejo), M.M. (Malgorzata Mikulska), P.M.-D., F.H., O.G., L.D., H.M.P.M., A.-S.B., E.G., B.I., W.V.K., G.M.d.l.C., M.M.M., S.S.K., O.R.S., S.C., I.M.-G., J.I.M., M.Z.R.G., P.H., R.A., M.P., J.L.D.P., L.Y., R.T., A.M., A.N., J.C. and C.G.; Supervision, Z.R.P.-B. and C.G.; Project administration, C.G.; Funding acquisition, C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC) (CB21/13/00009; CB21/13/00079; CB21/13/00054; CB21/13/00086), Madrid, Spain.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank the ESCMID Study Group for Bloodstream Infections, Endocarditis and Sepsis (ESGBIES) and the ESCMID Study Group for Immunocompromised Hosts (ESGICH) for supporting the study. We thank Centres de Recerca de Catalunya (CERCA) Programme and Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support. We thank the Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases and the Río Hortega program of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III for the financial support of pre-doctoral student A. Bergas. IRONIC Study Investigators: Alba Bergas and Enric Sastre, Infectious Diseases Department, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain. Marisol Rodríguez Arias, Oncology Department, Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO)–Hospital Duran i Reynals, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain. Juan Aguilar-Company, Oncology Department, and Nieves Larrosa, Microbiology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. Celia Cardozo and Pedro Puerta-Acalde, Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Clínic i Provincial, Barcelona, Spain. Ibrahim Karim-Yaqub, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Raffaella Greco, Haematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, and Paola Cichero, Microbiology and Virology Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Caglayan Merve Ayaz, Infectious Diseases Department, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Roberto Céspedes, Haematology Department, and Leire López-Soria, Microbiology Department, Cruces University Hosptial, Bilbao, Spain. Laura Magnasco, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Genoa (DISSAL) and Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. Jesús Fortún, Infectious Diseases Department, Ramón y Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain. Diego Torres, Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas (CEMIC), Buenos Aires, Argentina. Anna Boté, Infectious Diseases Department, and Mateu Espasa, Microbiology Department, Parc Taulí University Hospital, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain. Mia Hold Montaguti, Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil. Pierre-Yves Bochud, Infectious Diseases Department, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. Salvador Tabares Carrasco and Josefina Serrano López, Haematology Department, Reina Sofía University Hospital-IMIBIC-UCO, Córdoba. Hartmut Bertz, Haematology-Oncology Department, and Siegbert Rieg, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, University of Freiburg Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany. Marina de Cueto, Clinical Unit of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, University Hospitals Virgen Macarena and Virgen del Rocío–IBiS; Department of Medicine, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. José María Aguado, Infectious Diseases Unit, 12 de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid Spain. Juan Pablo Horcajada, Infectious Diseases Service, Hospital del Mar, Infectious Pathology and Antimicrobials Research Group (IPAR), Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigations Mèdiques (IMIM), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), CEXS-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. Saeed El Zein and Jean-Francois Jabbour, Infectious Diseases Division, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. Ayse Uyan-Onal Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir Turkey. Arzu Nazli-Zeka Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir Turkey. Begoña Palop, Microbiology Department, Hospital Regional de Málaga, Málaga, Spain. Lina Clemencia Correa, Clinica Maraya, Pereira, Colombia. Amanda Aparecida da Silva Machado and Vitória Pinson Ruggi Dutra, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Georg Maschmeyer, Department of Haematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité University Medical School, Berlin, Germany. Jose Munita, Instituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago de Chile, Chile, and Millennium Initiative for Collaborative Research on Bacterial Resistance (MICROB-R). Matteo Bassetti and Nadia Castaldo, Infectious Diseases Clinic, University of Udine and Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata, Udine, Italy. Paloma Sangro del Alcázar, Internal Medicine Department, Navarra University Clinic, Pamplona, Spain.

Conflicts of Interest

F.H. received speaker’s fees from Merck and Pfizer and Research and Educational grants from Pfizer. S.S.K. receives honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Gilead and Menarini for speaker bureaus and advisory boards. C.G. received speaker’s fees from MSD, Pfizer and Gilead and research grants from Pfizer and Merck. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Gudiol, C.; Bodro, M.; Simonetti, A.; Tubau, F.; González-Barca, E.; Cisnal, M.; Domingo-Domenech, E.; Jiménez, L.; Carratalà, J. Changing Etiology, Clinical Features, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Outcomes of Bloodstream Infection in Neutropenic Cancer Patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013, 19, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gustinetti, G.; Mikulska, M. Bloodstream Infections in Neutropenic Cancer Patients: A Practical Update. Virulence 2016, 7, 280–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mikulska, M.; Viscoli, C.; Orasch, C.; Livermore, D.M.; Averbuch, D.; Cordonnier, C.; Akova, M. Aetiology and Resistance in Bacteraemias among Adult and Paediatric Haematology and Cancer Patients. J. Infect. 2014, 68, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Satlin, M.J.; Cohen, N.; Ma, K.C.; Gedrimaite, Z.; Soave, R.; Askin, G.; Chen, L.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Walsh, T.J.; Seo, S.K. Bacteremia Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Neutropenic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies. J. Infect. 2016, 73, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Viscoli, C.; Varnier, O.; Machetti, M. Infections in Patients with Febrile Neutropenia: Epidemiology, Microbiology, and Risk Stratification. Clin Infect Dis 2005, 40 (Suppl. S4), S240–S245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cattaneo, C.; Antoniazzi, F.; Casari, S.; Ravizzola, G.; Gelmi, M.; Pagani, C.; D’Adda, M.; Morello, E.; Re, A.; Borlenghi, E.; et al. P. aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections among Hematological Patients: An Old or New Question? Ann. Hematol. 2012, 91, 1299–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nørgaard, M.; Larsson, H.; Pedersen, G.; Schønheyder, H.C.; Sørensen, H.T. Risk of Bacteraemia and Mortality in Patients with Haematological Malignancies. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2006, 12, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Trecarichi, E.M.; Tumbarello, M.; Caira, M.; Candoni, A.; Cattaneo, C.; Pastore, D.; Fanci, R.; Nosari, A.; Vianelli, N.; Busca, A.; et al. Multidrug Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infection in Adult Patients with Hematologic Malignancies. Haematologica 2011, 96, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Viasus, D.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Cardozo, C.; Suárez-Lledó, M.; Rodríguez-Núñez, O.; Morata, L.; Fehér, C.; Marco, F.; Chumbita, M.; Moreno-García, E.; et al. Predictors of Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Neutropenic Patients with Bloodstream Infection. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, H.S.; Park, B.K.; Kim, S.K.; Han, S.B.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, D.-G.; Chung, N.G.; Cho, B.; Jeong, D.C.; Kang, J.H. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteremia in Febrile Neutropenic Children and Adolescents with the Impact of Antibiotic Resistance: A Retrospective Study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tofas, P.; Samarkos, M.; Piperaki, E.T.; Kosmidis, C.; Triantafyllopoulou, I.D.; Kotsopoulou, M.; Pantazatou, A.; Perlorentzou, S.; Poulli, A.; Vagia, M.; et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteraemia in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Risk Factors, Treatment and Outcome. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 88, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martinez-Nadal, G.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Gudiol, C.; Cardozo, C.; Albasanz-Puig, A.; Marco, F.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Moreno-García, E.; Domingo-Doménech, E.; Chumbita, M.; et al. Inappropriate Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients With Bacteremia in the Era of Multidrug Resistance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Maurice, N.M.; Bedi, B.; Sadikot, R.T. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms: Host Response and Clinical Implications in Lung Infections. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2018, 58, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thi, M.T.T.; Wibowo, D.; Rehm, B.H.A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stewart, P.S.; Costerton, J.W. Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria in Biofilms. Lancet 2001, 358, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Høiby, N.; Ciofu, O.; Johansen, H.K.; Song, Z.J.; Moser, C.; Jensen, P.Ø.; Molin, S.; Givskov, M.; Tolker-Nielsen, T.; Bjarnsholt, T. The Clinical Impact of Bacterial Biofilms. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2011, 3, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Averbuch, D.; Orasch, C.; Cordonnier, C.; Livermore, D.M.; Mikulska, M.; Viscoli, C.; Gyssens, I.C.; Kern, W.V.; Klyasova, G.; Marchetti, O.; et al. European Guidelines for Empirical Antibacterial Therapy for Febrile Neutropenic Patients in the Era of Growing Resistance: Summary of the 2011 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia. Haematologica 2013, 98, 1826–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gudiol, C.; Aguilar-Guisado, M.; Azanza, J.R.; Candel, F.J.; Cantón, R.; Carratalà, J.; Garcia-Vidal, C.; Jarque, I.; Lizasoain, M.; Gil-Bermejo, J.M.; et al. Executive Summary of the Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), the Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI) and the Spanish Society of Haematology and Haemotherapy (SEHH) on the Management of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Hematological Malignancies. Enfermedades Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. Engl. Ed. 2020, 38, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Freifeld, A.G.; Bow, E.J.; Sepkowitz, K.A.; Boeckh, M.J.; Ito, J.I.; Mullen, C.A.; Raad, I.I.; Rolston, K.V.; Young, J.A.H.; Wingard, J.R. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 52, e56–e93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chumbita, M.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Yañez, L.; Cuesta, M.A.; Chinea, A.; Morales, I.E.; Abellan, P.F.; Gudiol, C.; Guerreiro, M.; Gonzalez-Sierra, P.; et al. Resistance to Empirical β-Lactams Recommended in Febrile Neutropenia Guidelines in Gram-Negative Bacilli Bloodstream Infections in Spain: A Multicentre Study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2022, 77, 2017–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chumbita, M.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Yáñez, L.; Angeles Cuesta, M.; Chinea, A.; Español-Morales, I.; Fernandez-Abellán, P.; Gudiol, C.; González-Sierra, P.; Rojas, R.; et al. High Rate of Inappropriate Antibiotics in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteremia Following International Guideline Recommendations. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e00674-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shankar-Hari, M.; Phillips, G.S.; Levy, M.L.; Seymour, C.W.; Liu, V.X.; Deutschman, C.S.; Angus, D.C.; Rubenfeld, G.D.; Singer, M. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 775–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cecconi, M.; Evans, L.; Levy, M.; Rhodes, A. Sepsis and Septic Shock. Lancet 2018, 392, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2016, 315, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chumbita, M.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Gudiol, C.; Garcia-Pouton, N.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Ladino, A.; Albasanz-Puig, A.; Helguera, C.; Bergas, A.; Grafia, I.; et al. Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Regimens on Mortality in Neutropenic Patients with Bloodstream Infection Presenting with Septic Shock. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, 1744–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gudiol, C.; Albasanz-Puig, A.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Pallarès, N.; Mussetti, A.; Ruiz-Camps, I.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Abdala, E.; Oltolini, C.; Akova, M.; et al. Clinical Predictive Model of Multidrug Resistance in Neutropenic Cancer Patients with Bloodstream Infection Due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e02494-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eucast: Clinical Breakpoints and Dosing of Antibiotics. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints (accessed on 9 October 2023).
  28. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant and Pandrug-Resistant Bacteria: An International Expert Proposal for Interim Standard Definitions for Acquired Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Evans, L.; Rhodes, A.; Alhazzani, W.; Antonelli, M.; Coopersmith, C.M.; French, C.; Machado, F.R.; Mcintyre, L.; Ostermann, M.; Prescott, H.C.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 1181–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Klastersky, J.; Paesmans, M.; Rubenstein, E.B.; Boyer, M.; Elting, L.; Feld, R.; Gallagher, J.; Herrstedt, J.; Rapoport, B.; Rolston, K.; et al. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index: A Multinational Scoring System for Identifying Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Cancer Patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000, 18, 3038–3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Garner, J.S.; Jarvis, W.R.; Emori, T.G.; Horan, T.C.; Hughes, J.M. CDC Definitions for Nosocomial Infections, 1988. Am. J. Infect. Control 1988, 16, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Le Borgne, P.; Feuillassier, L.; Schenck, M.; Herbrecht, J.E.; Janssen-Langenstein, R.; Simand, C.; Gantzer, J.; Nannini, S.; Fornecker, L.M.; Alamé, K.; et al. Comparison of Short-and Long-Term Mortality in Patients with or without Cancer Admitted to the ICU for Septic Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study. Cancers 2022, 14, 3196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dias, S.P.; Brouwer, M.C.; Van De Beek, D. Sex and Gender Differences in Bacterial Infections. Infect. Immun. 2022, 90, e00283-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rolston, K.V.I. Infections in Cancer Patients with Solid Tumors: A Review. Infect. Dis. Ther. 2017, 6, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cooper, A.J.; Keller, S.P.; Chan, C.; Glotzbecker, B.E.; Klompas, M.; Baron, R.M.; Rhee, C. Improvements in Sepsis-Associated Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer versus Those without Cancer: A 12-Year Analysis Using Clinical Data. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2020, 17, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Albasanz-Puig, A.; Durà-Miralles, X.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Mussetti, A.; Ruiz-Camps, I.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Abdala, E.; Oltolini, C.; Akova, M.; Montejo, J.M.; et al. Effect of Combination Antibiotic Empirical Therapy on Mortality in Neutropenic Cancer Patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa Pneumonia. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gudiol, C.; Royo-Cebrecos, C.; Laporte, J.; Ardanuy, C.; Garcia-Vidal, C.; Antonio, M.; Arnan, M.; Carratalà, J. Clinical Features, Aetiology and Outcome of Bacteraemic Pneumonia in Neutropenic Cancer Patients. Respirology 2016, 21, 1411–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kang, C.I.; Song, J.H.; Chung, D.R.; Peck, K.R.; Ko, K.S.; Yeom, J.S.; Ki, H.K.; Son, J.S.; Lee, S.S.; Kim, Y.S.; et al. Risk Factors and Pathogenic Significance of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in 2286 Patients with Gram-Negative Bacteremia. J. Infect. 2011, 62, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pang, Z.; Raudonis, R.; Glick, B.R.; Lin, T.J.; Cheng, Z. Antibiotic Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Mechanisms and Alternative Therapeutic Strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Alfei, S. Shifting from Ammonium to Phosphonium Salts: A Promising Strategy to Develop Next-Generation Weapons against Biofilms. Pharmaceutics 2024, 16, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Turkina, M.V.; Vikström, E. Bacteria-Host Crosstalk: Sensing of the Quorum in the Context of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections. J. Innate Immun. 2019, 11, 263–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bergas, A.; Albasanz-Puig, A.; Fernández-Cruz, A.; Machado, M.; Novo, A.; van Duin, D.; Garcia-Vidal, C.; Hakki, M.; Ruiz-Camps, I.; del Pozo, J.L.; et al. Real-Life Use of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for the Treatment of Bloodstream Infection Due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Neutropenic Hematologic Patients: A Matched Control Study (ZENITH Study). Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e02292-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chaftari, A.M.; Hachem, R.; Malek, A.E.; Mulanovich, V.E.; Szvalb, A.D.; Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Ali, S.; Deeba, R.; Chaftari, P.; et al. A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Ceftolozane/Tazobactam to Standard of Care in the Management of Neutropenia and Fever in Patients With Hematological Malignancies. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2022, 9, ofac079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fernández-Cruz, A.; Alba, N.; Semiglia-Chong, M.A.; Padilla, B.; Rodríguez-Macías, G.; Kwon, M.; Cercenado, E.; Chamorro-de-Vega, E.; Machado, M.; Pérez-Lago, L.; et al. A Case-Control Study of Real-Life Experience with Ceftolozane-Tazobactam in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e02340-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Albasanz-Puig, A.; Gudiol, C.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Ayaz, C.M.; Machado, M.; Herrera, F.; Martín-Dávila, P.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Cardozo, C.; Akova, M.; et al. Impact of the Inclusion of an Aminoglycoside to the Initial Empirical Antibiotic Therapy for Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections in Hematological Neutropenic Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study (AMINOLACTAM Study). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e02340-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lemiale, V.; Pons, S.; Mirouse, A.; Tudesq, J.J.; Hourmant, Y.; Mokart, D.; Pène, F.; Kouatchet, A.; Mayaux, J.; Nyunga, M.; et al. Sepsis and Septic Shock in Patients with Malignancies: A Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire En Réanimation Onco-Hématologique Study. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 822–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ostenson, R.C. Critically Ill Cancer Patients: Benefit and Expense. JAMA 1993, 269, 2738, author reply 2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Azoulay, E.; Pochard, F.; Chevret, S.; Vinsonneau, C.; Garrouste, M.; Cohen, Y.; Thuong, M.; Paugam, C.; Apperre, C.; De Cagny, B.; et al. Compliance with Triage to Intensive Care Recommendations. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 29, 2132–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Azoulay, E.; Soares, M.; Darmon, M.; Benoit, D.; Pastores, S.; Afessa, B. Intensive Care of the Cancer Patient: Recent Achievements and Remaining Challenges. Ann. Intensive Care 2011, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Soares, M.; Salluh, J.I. Improving Survival in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer: The Door Is Still Open. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 40, 305–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bos, M.M.E.M.; Verburg, I.W.M.; Dumaij, I.; Stouthard, J.; Nortier, J.W.R.; Richel, D.; van der Zwan, E.P.A.; de Keizer, N.F.; de Jonge, E. Intensive Care Admission of Cancer Patients: A Comparative Analysis. Cancer Med. 2015, 4, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Biskup, E.; Cai, F.; Vetter, M.; Marsch, S. Oncological Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Prognosis, Decision-Making, Therapies and End-of-Life Care. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2017, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aapro, M.S.; Bohlius, J.; Cameron, D.A.; Lago, L.D.; Donnelly, J.P.; Kearney, N.; Lyman, G.H.; Pettengell, R.; Tjan-Heijnen, V.C.; Walewski, J.; et al. 2010 Update of EORTC Guidelines for the Use of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor to Reduce the Incidence of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in Adult Patients with Lymphoproliferative Disorders and Solid Tumours. Eur. J. Cancer 2011, 47, 8–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Manjappachar, N.K.; Cuenca, J.A.; Ramírez, C.M.; Hernandez, M.; Martin, P.; Reyes, M.P.; Heatter, A.J.; Gutierrez, C.; Rathi, N.; Sprung, C.L.; et al. Outcomes and Predictors of 28-Day Mortality in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies and Septic Shock Defined by Sepsis-3 Criteria. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2022, 20, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Georges, Q.; Azoulay, E.; Mokart, D.; Soares, M.; Jeon, K.; Oeyen, S.; Rhee, C.K.; Gruber, P.; Ostermann, M.; Hill, Q.A.; et al. Influence of Neutropenia on Mortality of Critically Ill Cancer Patients: Results of a Meta-Analysis on Individual Data. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of episodes of P. aeruginosa bloodstream infection in patients with and without septic shock.
Table 1. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of episodes of P. aeruginosa bloodstream infection in patients with and without septic shock.
CharacteristicsOverall
n = 1213		No Septic Shock
n = 802 (%)		Septic Shock
n = 411 (%)		p-Value
Age (years, median, range)60 (IQR 20)60 (IQR 21)60 (IQR 19)0.423
Male sex749475 (59.2)274 (66.7)0.012
Co-morbidities
Chronic heart disease15094 (11.7)56 (13.6)0.340
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease11871 (8.9)47 (11.4)0.151
Diabetes mellitus13799 (12.3)38 (9.2)0.107
Chronic liver disease8554 (6.7)31 (7.5)0.601
Other comorbidities a146102 (13.3)44 (11.4)0.372
Solid tumors299162(20.2)137 (33.3)<0.001
Lung cancer8850 (30.9)38 (27.7)
Gastrointestinal cancer5225(15.4)27 (19.7)
Breast cancer2818 (11.1)10 (7.3)
Genitourinary cancer2911 (6.8)18 (13.1)
Other solid tumors10258 (35.8)44 (32.1)
Hematologic malignancies914640 (79.8)274 (66.7)<0.001
Acute myeloid leukemia310233 (36.4)77 (28.1)
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma271179 (28)92 (33.6)
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia9758 (9.1)39 (14.2)
Other hematologic malignancies236170 (26.6)66 (24.1)
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant289199 (24.8)90 (21.9)0.259
High-risk MASCC index score b762422 (57.4)340 (92.6)<0.001
Profound neutropenia (0.1 × 109/L)725464 (59.6)261(65.1)0.069
Severe mucositis (grade III–IV)169109 (13.7)60 (14.9)0.574
Corticosteroid therapy (1 month)630402 (51.2)228 (56.6)0.079
Previous antibiotic therapy (1 month)663446 (56.7)217 (53.3)0.259
Prior quinolone prophylaxis195134 (16.9)61 (14.9)0.377
Prior chemotherapy (1 month)1033678 (84.9)355 (86.6)0.439
Urinary catheter20599 (12.8)106 (26)<0.001
Nosocomial acquisition691475 (59.2)216 (52.6)0.026
Source of bloodstream infection
Endogenous source452329 (41)123 (29.9)<0.001
Pneumonia310154 (19.2)156 (38)<0.001
Catheter-related infection11278 (9.7)34 (8.3)0.408
Neutropenic enterocolitis7152 (6.5)19 (4.6)0.191
Skin and soft tissue infection7049 (6.1)21 (5.1)0.480
Urinary tract5133 (4.1)18 (4.4)0.828
Other abdominal sources c4525 (3.1)20 (4.9)0.127
Perineal infection3429 (3.6)5 (1.2)0.017
Mucositis2420 (2.5)4 (1)0.083
Unknown origin1511 (1.4)4 (1)0.785
Gangrenous ecthyma5132 (4)19 (4.7)0.597
MDRPA d308169 (21.1)139 (33.8)<0.001
XDRPA e234122 (15.3)112 (27.5)<0.001
a other comorbidities included chronic renal disease and cerebrovascular disease; b MASCC: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; c other abdominal sources included cholangitis, peritonitis, and intra-abdominal abscesses; d MDRPA: multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; e XDRPA: extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Table 2. Initial empirical antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes of P. aeruginosa bloodstream infection compared by group.
Table 2. Initial empirical antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes of P. aeruginosa bloodstream infection compared by group.
CharacteristicsNo Septic Shock
n = 802 (%)		Septic Shock
n = 411 (%)		p-Value
Empirical antibiotic therapy
Monotherapy514 (65.1)221 (54.7)<0.001
Combination therapy276 (34.9)183 (45.3)<0.001
Both antibiotics with in vitro activity 213 (27)120 (29.7)0.324
β-lactam + aminoglycoside 165 (20.9)93 (23)0.403
β-lactam + non-aminoglycoside46 (5.8)26 (6.4)0.678
Combination without β-lactam1 (0.1)5 (1.2)0.019
Inadequate empirical antibiotic therapy130 (16.2)89 (21.7)0.020
Carbapenems44 (33.8)36 (40.4)
Piperacillin–tazobactam39 (30)23 (25.8)
Fluoroquinolones12 (9.2)3 (3.3)
Ceftriaxone6 (4.6)2 (2.2)
Aminoglycosides2 (1.5)3 (3.3)
Glycopeptides2 (1.5)2 (2.2)
Antipseudomonal cephalosporins1 (0.76)2 (2.2)
Cotrimoxazole1 (0.76)1 (1.1)
Tigecycline2 (1.5)1 (1.1)
Other21 (16.1)16 (17.9)
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor 424 (53.6)198 (48.5)0.096
Intensive care unit admission84 (10.5)304 (74)<0.001
Invasive mechanical ventilation45 (5.6)201 (49.1)<0.001
Persistent bloodstream infection 61 (7.7)73 (18.3)<0.001
Early case fatality rate (7 days)97 (12.1)239 (58.2)<0.001
Overall case fatality rate (30 days)185 (23.1)304 (74)<0.001
Table 3. Risk factors for overall 30-day case fatality rate in patients with septic shock by univariate and multivariate analysis.
Table 3. Risk factors for overall 30-day case fatality rate in patients with septic shock by univariate and multivariate analysis.
CharacteristicsUnivariate
Adjusted OR
(95% CI)		Univariate
p-Value		Adjusted OR
(95% CI)		Multivariate
p-Value
Mechanical ventilation9.67 (5.35–17.48)<0.0019.00 (4.72–17.18)<0.001
β-lactam + aminoglycoside0.26 (0.16–0.42)<0.0010.58 (0.32–1.05)0.072
MDRPA a3.27 (1.87–5.70)<0.0011.98 (1.00–3.90)0.048
Age1.00 (0.98–1.01)0.6531.02 (1.00–1.03)0.109
Sex1.04 (0.65–1.66)0.8741.25 (0.71–2.22)0.443
High risk MASCC index score b0.99 (0.41–2.42)0.9890.86 (0.28–2.59)0.782
IEAT c4.49 (2.08–10.00)<0.0012.47 (1.01–5.88)0.047
Persistent bloodstream infection2.54 (1.25–5.15)0.0102.49 (1.12–5.56)0.026
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor0.43 (0.27–0.68)<0.0010.33 (0.19–0.58)<0.001
Pneumonia1.29 (0.81–2.04)0.2860.84 (0.39–1.82)0.652
Urinary tract infection0.33 (0.13–0.86)0.0230.27 (0.07–0.99)0.047
Endogenous source0.70 (0.44–1.13)0.1430.46 (0.20–1.03)0.058
Catheter infection1.16 (0.51–2.64)0.7280.65 (0.21–2.05)0.466
a MDRPA: multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; b MASCC: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; c IEAT: inadequate empirical antibiotic therapy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Royo-Cebrecos, C.; Laporte-Amargós, J.; Peña, M.; Ruiz-Camps, I.; Garcia-Vidal, C.; Abdala, E.; Oltolini, C.; Akova, M.; Montejo, M.; Mikulska, M.; et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections Presenting with Septic Shock in Neutropenic Cancer Patients: Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040705

AMA Style

Royo-Cebrecos C, Laporte-Amargós J, Peña M, Ruiz-Camps I, Garcia-Vidal C, Abdala E, Oltolini C, Akova M, Montejo M, Mikulska M, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections Presenting with Septic Shock in Neutropenic Cancer Patients: Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy. Microorganisms. 2024; 12(4):705. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040705

Chicago/Turabian Style

Royo-Cebrecos, Cristina, Júlia Laporte-Amargós, Marta Peña, Isabel Ruiz-Camps, Carolina Garcia-Vidal, Edson Abdala, Chiara Oltolini, Murat Akova, Miguel Montejo, Malgorzata Mikulska, and et al. 2024. "Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections Presenting with Septic Shock in Neutropenic Cancer Patients: Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy" Microorganisms 12, no. 4: 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12040705

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop