Home > Urology > EAU 2020 > Surgical Techniques and Safety > New urosepsis data from the SERPENS study

New urosepsis data from the SERPENS study

Presented By
Dr Zafer Tandoğdu, University College London, UK

Notice: Undefined index: new_doi_fields in /home/daan/projects/medicalconferences_dev/wp-content/themes/writers-blogily-child/functions.php on line 138

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/daan/projects/medicalconferences_dev/wp-content/themes/writers-blogily-child/functions.php on line 138

Notice: Undefined index: new_doi_fields in /home/daan/projects/medicalconferences_dev/wp-content/themes/writers-blogily-child/functions.php on line 174

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/daan/projects/medicalconferences_dev/wp-content/themes/writers-blogily-child/functions.php on line 174

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/daan/projects/medicalconferences_dev/wp-content/themes/writers-blogily-child/functions.php on line 175
Conference
EAU 2020
Trial
SERPENS
Urosepsis is associated with lower mortality than sepsis derived from other sites, but if appropriate measures are not taken, 10-15% of patients will develop a recurrent urosepsis, new findings report.

Dr Zafer Tandoğdu (University College London, UK) presented data derived from the SERPENS study [1]. This prospective observational study of approximately 600 patients specifically looked at outcomes for urosepsis.

Defining diagnostic criteria in the sepsis field has been problematic, but most researchers now agree that a suspicion of infection coupled with a mental state assessment and either the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) or the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) constitute the best approach for the identification of severe sepsis and septic shock. The susceptibility profile of each patient should be carefully evaluated at the baseline evaluation (diagnosis of urosepsis). Most patients will develop urosepsis within 10 days of an intervention. Many patients will have had previous urosepsis, previous hospitalisation, or are diabetic, and 43% will have had a recent urinary tract infection. Overall, about half of urosepsis patients have >1 comorbidity. Baseline catheter burden should be evaluated as well.

The 30-day outcomes from the SERPENS database indicated that mortality is reduced in urosepsis, at only 2.8% versus 20% other-source mortality. This reduction may be attributed to the fact that urosepsis is a less aggressive septic condition as compared with other septic sources (e.g. pneumonia or colorectal) because it is possible to gain local control relatively quickly. Among the patients who died, 75% had severe sepsis and 25% had SIRS/sepsis.

The clinical failure rate was 15%, of whom 77% had severe sepsis. Urosepsis patients carry a high burden of disease, including local and systemic damage, and 10-15% of patients will acquire a recurrent infection. The main determinants of clinical failure are age and comorbidities (e.g. Parkinson’s disease), catheter burden, acute kidney injury and resting respiratory rate, previous admissions and antibiotic treatments, and previous urinary tract infection burden.

Dr Tandoğdu commented on the current discussion in sepsis management of personalisation versus protocolisation. Although the concept ‘each hour saves lives’ has led to early administration of antibiotics, only 57%-80% of patients with suspicion of sepsis were proven to actually have sepsis [2]. In non-septic shock patients, there is a window of time to identify the pathogen and apply specific treatments. In another prospective observational study (n=679), 34% of patients received inappropriate antibiotics [3]. Despite the overuse of antibiotics, no impact on mortality was observed, and individual patient characteristics turned out to be more relevant to patient outcomes.

Dr Tandoğdu’s take-home message was: "Don’t delay antibiotics, but do use them cautiously and selectively."

  1. Tandoğdu Z, et al. EAU20 Virtual Congress, 17-26 July 2020, Plenary Session 02: New frontiers in infections.

  2. Klein Klouwenberg PM, et al. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):319.

  3. Fitzpatrick JM, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(3):244-251.




Posted on