• G Berlot and G Dimastromatteo.
• Unit of Anesthesia, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, Department of Surgical and Anesthesiological Sciences and Intensive Care, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. berlot@inwind.it
• Minerva Anestesiol. 2004 Oct 1;70(10):739-43; 743-5.

AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate if the currently available clinical data and the time elapsing from the diagnosis to the administration of IgM and IgA-enriched immunoglobulins can predict the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock not responding to the current treatments.MethodsAll patients with these diagnoses, who did not respond to the standard treatment from August 1999 to September 2002, were retrospectively enrolled in the study. The variables evaluated included: (a) SAPS II and age at admission; (b) body temperature, mean arterial pressure, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, creatinine, blood white cell count on the day before the administration of the IgM and IgA-enriched immuno-globulins; (c) sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score before and during the treatment; (d) time elapsing between the diagnosis and the treatment; (e) outcome.ResultsOverall, 22 patients have been enrolled (17 M, 5 F, age 54.3+/-14.5 years). Eleven (50%) survived. None of the variables measured was different among survivors and nonsurvivors. Only the time elapsing from the diagnosis of severe sepsis and septic shock and the beginning of the treatment significantly differed among survivors and nonsurvivors (2.72 +/- 1.49 days vs 7.45 +/- 3.41 days respectively, p<0.005).ConclusionIn patients with severe sepsis and septic shock the currently available clinical variables and severity score are not valuable in identifying those patients who could take the maximal advantage from the administration of the IgM and IgA-enriched immunoglobulins. Thus, their time of administration plays a major role in the treatment of septic patients unresponding to the conventional treatment.

18 keywords...

hide…