Intensive Care Med (2001) 27: S 33±S 48
Pierre-Yves Bochud Antibiotics in sepsis
Michel P. Glauser
Thierry Calandra
P.-Y. Bochud ´ M. P. Glauser ´ T. Calandra
Division of Infectious Diseases,
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
Introduction
The management of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis,
or septic shock requires an integrated approach combin-
ing the use of rigorous diagnostic measures and the rap-
id initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy and
supportive care. Antimicrobial therapy remains the cor-
nerstone of therapy of patients with sepsis. However,
drainage of abscesses and removal of infected foreign
material or necrotic tissues are also of critical impor-
tance for recovery. In recent years several review arti-
cles have been published on the treatment of patients
with severe sepsis and septic shock [1, 2, 3]. However,
only few have focused specifically on the antimicrobial
aspect of the patient management. Therefore the aim
of the present article was to use an evidence-based ap-
proach to review the literature on antimicrobial therapy
for severe sepsis and septic shock.
In reviewing the literature on this topic we were rap-
idly confronted with two difficulties. One was the lack
of standard definitions of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic
shock. Until the publication of the definitions of the
Consensus Conference of the American College of
Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medi-
cine in 1992 [4], the terms sepsis, severe sepsis, and sep-
tic shock were ill-defined and often employed inter-
changeably. The other was the surprising paucity of
large comparative studies on the efficacy and safety of
different antimicrobial regimens in nonneutropenic pa-
tients. Whereas the initial studies on treatment of bac-
teremias published in the 1960s and 1970s included a
majority of nonneutropenic patients, most of the recent
large, clinical trials have been conducted in neutropenic
cancer patients. This emphasis is probably due to the
high frequency of bloodstream infections in neutropenic
cancer patients and the severely compromised host de-
fenses in the context of neutropenia, providing stringent
conditions for testing antimicrobial agents. Therefore
treatment guidelines for patients with severe sepsis and
septic shock have been based for the most part on the
results of large, multicenter studies conducted in neu-
tropenic cancer patients [5, 6].
Treatment guidelines for the use of antimicrobial
agents in the neutropenic host have been published re-
cently [7], but these are unlikely to apply to patients
with severe sepsis or septic shock. Moreover, neutro-
penic cancer patients account for a minority of patients
with severe sepsis or septic shock and have often been
excluded from septic shock trials [8, 9]. Hence the need
to review, using an evidence-based approach, the litera-
ture on antibiotic therapy for patients with severe sepsis
and septic shock.
Methods
Data source
Medline was used to search articles published between 1966 and
October 1999. Keywords were the generic Medical Subject Head-
ing (MeSH) terms sepsis, anti-infective agents, and clinical trials.
ªSepsisº comprised the terms septicemia, sepsis syndrome, septic
shock, bacteremia, fungemia, parasitemia, and viremia. ªAnti-in-
fective agentsº comprised the term antibiotics which was exploded
to include all classes of antibiotics, and all antibiotic names. ªClin-
ical trialº was defined as a pre-planned clinical study of the safety,
efficacy, or optimum dosage schedule, of one or more diagnostic,
therapeutic or prophylactic drugs, devices, or techniques in hu-
mans selected according to predetermined criteria of eligibility
and observed for predefined evidence of favorable and unfavor-
able effects. The MeSH keyword ªagranulocytosisº was used to ex-
clude studies of neutropenic patients. Additional articles were re-
trieved from review articles or from the reference list of articles
identified by the Medline search. Epidemiological data were ex-
S 34
Fig. 1 A, B Cause of infections in patients with severe sepsis and
septic shock. A 1963±1987: Data are derived from 3 studies [22,
23, 24] that included 674 patients. B 1988±1998: Data are derived
from 18 studies [8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36] that included 8,988 patients
tracted from articles identified by a Medline search using the key-
words ªepidemiologyº and ªsepsisº, and by a systematic review of
27 clinical trials of anti-inflammatory or mediator-targeted thera-
pies in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock [10, 11, 12, 13,
14].
Selection of articles
Abstracts of all articles meeting the selection criteria were re-
viewed to exclude irrelevant studies. Review articles and articles
on topics such as antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacology, microbiol-
ogy, oncology, hematology, immunology, mediators of inflamma-
tion, allergy, catheter management, animal studies, chronic infec-
tions, and specific infections (AIDS, endocarditis, chronic salmo-
nellosis, viral infections in organ transplant patients, hemorrhagic
fever, viral hepatitis, parasitic infections, and malaria) were exclud-
ed if they did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. Articles were select-
ed only if there was unequivocal evidence that patients had clini-
cally or microbiologically documented infections, and if the study
met at least one of the following criteria: (a) a definition of sepsis
or severe sepsis consistent with the definition of the Consensus
Conference of the American College of Chest Physicians and the
Society of Critical Care Medicine [4], (b) sepsis with at least one
organ dysfunction or sign of hypo-perfusion present in more than
50 % of the patients, or (c) an overall mortality greater than 10 %.
This cutoff was chosen because it represents the lower end of the
mortality range of patients with the sepsis syndrome [15]. Medline
search and selection of articles was done by one reviewer (P. Y.B.).
To ensure that articles had been properly selected a random
sample of 25 % of the articles identified by the Medline search
were examined by a second reviewer (T. C.). Agreement between
the two reviewers was assessed using the k test [16]. There was
91 % overall agreement between the two reviewers. The k statistic
was 0.75 indicating that there was substantial agreement between
the two reviewers. Articles for which there was disagreement
were discussed to reach consensus. Levels of evidence and graded
responses to questions were assessed following the criteria pro-
posed by Sackett [17].
Epidemiological features of severe sepsis and septic
shock
Micro-organisms
As shown in Fig. 1A, Gram-negative bacteria caused
the majority of bloodstream infections in the 1960s and
early 1970s [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. This trend persist-
ed through the middle 1980s, when the proportion of in-
fections caused by Gram-positive bacteria began to in-
crease. Recent data derived from three epidemiological
studies and 15 clinical trials of anti-inflammatory agents
conducted between 1988 and 1998 are summarized in
Fig. 1B [8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36]. Standard definitions of severe sepsis and
septic shock were used in all these studies. A pathogen
was identified in 71 % of the patients. On average, blood
cultures were positive in 34 % of the patients, ranging
between 9 % and 64 %.
The most striking finding was that Gram-positive in-
fections were almost as frequent as Gram-negative in-
fections, confirming a trend reported in many studies
[9, 13, 25, 26, 37]. In fact, cases of Gram-positive bacter-
emia outnumbered Gram-negative bacteremia in some
studies [12, 32, 33, 34]. In the present compilation of ar-
ticles, Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bac-
teria accounted for 34 % and 42 % of the infections, re-
spectively. Mixed bacterial infections occurred in 14 %
of the patients. Half of the Gram-positive infections
were caused by staphylococci (Staphylococcus aureus:
12 % and coagulase-negative staphylococci: 7 %). En-
terococci were isolated in 8 % of the patients and pneu-
mococci in 4 %. Most Gram-negative infections were
caused by Enterobacteriaceae (29 %) with Escherichia
coli (13 %) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (8 %) being the
most frequent enteric pathogens. Pseudomonas aerugin-
osa (8 %) was the third most frequent agent of Gram-
negative sepsis. Fungi, mainly Candida species, were
the causal agent of sepsis in 5 % of the patients. The
number of fungal infections are also increasing. Candida
was the fourth most common bloodstream pathogen in
all recent studies of nosocomial bloodstream infections
in the United States [38], and it outnumbered all
Gram-negative bacteria [39]. Anaerobes were isolated
in a minority of patients (2 %).
Sites of infection
The identification of the primary site of infection is a
critical part of the work-up of the septic patient. Togeth-
er with the Gram stain of specimens obtained from any

Fig. 2 A, B Sites of infections in patients with severe sepsis and
septic shock. A 1963±1987: Data are derived from 2 studies [22,
23] that included 585 patients. B 1988±1998: Data are derived
from 7 studies [9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 36] that included 5,423 patients
site suspected of infection, it is probably the single most
important information in guiding the choice of antibiot-
ic therapy. A site of infection was identified in 92 % of
2803 patients included in nine studies [14, 18, 23, 27, 35,
40, 41, 42, 43]. Over the past 30 years significant changes
have occurred in the relative frequencies of the site of
infections in septic patients. The abdominal cavity and
the urinary tract were the most frequent sites of infec-
tions (27 % and 21 %, respectively) in studies conducted
in the 1960s and 1970s (Fig. 2A) [21, 23]. Data derived
from seven studies performed between 1988 and 1998
revealed that lung infections were predominant, ac-
counting for 36 % of all infections (Fig. 2B) [9, 11, 12,
13, 14, 26, 36]. Primary bloodstream infections (i.e.,
without any other source of infection) were recorded in
20 % of the patients. Abdominal infections and urinary
tract infections were the third and fourth most common
foci of infections. Similar findings have been reported
recently [44].
Discussion: literature-based recommendations
Does appropriate antimicrobial therapy improve the
outcome of patients with bloodstream infections and
severe sepsis or septic shock ± in patients with Gram-
negative bacteremia?
Answer: yes, grade D.
S 35
Recommendation
Retrospective studies have shown that early administra-
tion of appropriate antibiotics reduces the mortality in
patients with bloodstream infections caused by Gram-
negative bacteria.
Rationale
For obvious reasons there have never been prospective,
randomized, controlled trials on the impact of antibiotic
treatment versus no treatment on the outcome of pati-
ents with sepsis. Several retrospective studies conducted
in the 1960s and in the 1970s showed that appropriate
antimicrobial therapy, defined as the use of at least one
antibiotic active in vitro against the causative bacteria,
leads to lower mortality among patients with Gram-neg-
ative bacteremia than among similar patients receiving
inappropriate therapy (Table 1) [19, 20, 22, 24]. The
landmark study by McCabe and Jackson [22] included
173 patients with Gram-negative bacillary bacteremia,
who were classified in three categories based on the se-
verity of the underlying disease categories (i.e., rapidly
fatal, ultimately fatal, and nonfatal). Hypotension (i.e.,
a blood pressure of less than 90/60 mmHg or a decrease
of more than 70 mmHg in a hypertensive patient) was
present in 37 % patients and the overall mortality was
30 %, suggesting that most patients probably presented
with severe sepsis or septic shock. Appropriate antibiot-
ic therapy was linked with a reduction in mortality from
48 % to 22 %. Subsequent studies gave similar results. In
the study by Freid and Vosti [20] the mortality rate was
32 % in patients who had been treated with appropriate
antibacterial agents, compared to 48 % in those who
did not receive adequate antibiotics. Proper antibiotic
therapy was associated with a reduction in mortality
from 47 % to 27 % in a retrospective analysis of 218 pa-
tients with Gram-negative rod bacteremia by Bryant
et al. [19]. In the study by Young et al. [24] that included
451 patients with Gram-negative rod bacteremia, ap-
propriate antibiotic treatment was also found to reduce
mortality from 51 % to 28 %. Of note, the impact of ap-
propriate antibiotic treatment on patients' outcome
was shown to be statistically significant in patients with
nonfatal or ultimately fatal diseases, but not in patients
with rapidly fatal diseases. Moreover, in a review of 612
episodes of Gram-negative bacteremia Kreger et al.
[45] showed that prompt administration of proper em-
pirical antimicrobial therapy reduced by half the fre-
quency with which shock developed in patients with
rapidly fatal, ultimately fatal, or nonfatal diseases.
S 36

Table 1 Impact of the appro- Mortality with appropriate Mortality without

priateness of antibiotic therapy antibiotics appropriate antibiotics
on the mortality of Gram-nega-
tive bacteremia Category of underlying disease n % n % p*
McCabe and Jackson [22]
Rapidly fatal 8/10 80 2/2 100 NS
Ultimately fatal 10/22 45 10/16 63 NS
Nonfatal 0/49 0 3/13 23 0.001
Total 18/81 22 15/31 48 0.007
Freid and Vosti [20]
Rapidly fatal 21/25 84 10/11 91 NS
Ultimately fatal 33/78 42 9/14 64 NS
Nonfatal 14/109 13 9/33 27 0.05
Total 68/211 32 28/58 48 0.02
Bryant et al. 1971 [19]
Rapidly fatal 12/14 86 5/7 71 NS
Ultimately fatal 19/49 39 13/18 72 0.02
Nonfatal 11/95 12 10/35 29 0.02
Total 42/158 27 28/60 47 0.005
Young et al. 1977 [24]
Rapidly fatal 41/49 84 17/20 85 NS
Ultimately fatal 62/149 42 32/48 67 0.003
Nonfatal 25/253 10 22/71 31 < 0.001
Total 128/451 28 71/139 51 < 0.001
Four studies combined
Rapidly fatal 82/98 84 34/40 85 NS
Ultimately fatal 124/289 42 64/96 67 < 0.001
Nonfatal 50/506 10 44/152 29 < 0.001
*p values are based on the
Total 256/902 28 142/288 49 < 0.001
c2 test

Does appropriate antimicrobial therapy improve the
outcome of patients with bloodstream infections and
severe sepsis or septic shock ± in patients with Gram-
positive bacteremia?
Answer: yes, grade E.
Recommendation
By analogy with the observations made in patients with
Gram-negative sepsis and despite the lack of substantial
clinical data in the literature, it is likely that appropriate
antibiotic therapy reduces the morbidity and the mortal-
ity of Gram-positive sepsis.
Rationale
While the percentage of patients treated with inappro-
priate antibiotics ranged between 27 % and 38 % in the
initial studies on Gram-negative bacteremias [19, 20,
22], it was less than 15 % in recent trials in which Gram-
positive bacteria predominated [34, 46]. This explains
why there are almost no data on the impact of appropri-
ate antibiotic therapy in patients with Gram-positive
sepsis. Clinical studies comparing antibacterial therapy
to no therapy would be unethical. However, the emer-
gence of multiresistant Gram-positive bacteria may
give us an opportunity to address that question. In fact,
clinical and microbiological success rates were evaluated
in 20 patients with severe infections due to vancomycin-
resistant Enterococcus faecium [47]. That study com-
pared patients treated with quinupristin-dalfopristin
with 40 historical controls treated with other agents,
mostly vancomycin. The mortality directly attributable
to infection was lower in the quinupristin-dalfopristin
group (5 of 20, 25 %) than in the control group (17 of
42, 40 %), suggesting that appropriate antibiotics re-
duced mortality (p = 0.27, two-tailed Fisher's exact test).
Does appropriate antimicrobial therapy improve the
outcome of patients with bloodstream infections and
severe sepsis or septic shock ± in patients with
candidemia?
Answer: yes, grade D.
Recommendation
Antifungal therapy is recommended for patients with
candidemia. An international panel of experts who par-

ticipated in a consensus conference on the management
and prevention of severe Candida infections made simi-
lar recommendations [48]. Whether early treatment is
associated with better outcome is unknown, and addi-
tional studies are needed to evaluate this question.
Rationale
Candidemia may cause significant morbidity and seri-
ous long-term sequelae and is associated with mortality
rates in the range of 40±60 %. In a large, multicenter,
prospective observational study of 427 patients with
candidemia 369 patients were treated with antifungal
agents, while 58 patients did not receive antifungal ther-
apy, for unknown reasons [49]. The mortality rates after
14 days and after 30 days were 27 % (99 of 369) and
37 % (136 of 369) in patients who received antifungal
therapy and 74 % (43 of 58) and 76 % (44 of 58) in those
who did not (p < 0.001), suggesting that antifungal ther-
apy reduced mortality. However, factors other than anti-
fungal therapy may also have contributed to these dif-
ferences as the proportion of critically ill and cancer pa-
tients was higher in the untreated group than in the
group who benefited from antifungal therapy. Of the
369 patients 319 received early therapy (i.e., treatment
started within 72 h of the first positive blood cultures),
while 50 patients were treated more than 3 days after
documentation of fungal sepsis. Early administration
did not improve survival, even when patients were strat-
ified by antifungal agents or severity of illness. In con-
trast, in a study of 46 patients with candidemia, early an-
tifungal therapy (i.e., treatment initiated £48 h or soon-
er after the onset of candidemia) was found to improve
survival (p = 0.06) [50].
Monotherapy versus combination therapy
Historical background and rationale
Following the demonstration that early, appropriate an-
tibiotic treatment of Gram-negative bacteremia im-
proves patients' outcome and prevents the development
of septic shock, investigators examined whether treat-
ment with two active antibiotics instead of one would
improve outcome further. Several arguments would
support the use of antibiotic combinations. First, combi-
nation therapy broadens the antibacterial spectrum,
which might be important, since treatment is usually ini-
tiated empirically in the critically ill patient with sepsis.
Moreover, polymicrobial infections may occur, especial-
ly in patients with intra-abdominal or pelvic infections,
and two antibiotics may also help to cover a broader
range of pathogens. Second, a combination of two anti-
biotics may exert additive or synergistic effects against
S 37
the infecting organism, resulting in enhanced antibacte-
rial activity and possibly improved clinical response
[51, 52, 53]. Theoretically, synergism may also allow the
use of a reduced dose of the most toxic of the two
agents, but this is rarely done in practice. Third, the use
of a combination of antibiotics has been shown to re-
duce the emergence of resistant bacteria [54] and the in-
cidence of superinfections [55].
The potential advantages of combination therapy
were first assessed in a series of retrospective studies
performed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In an analy-
sis of 444 episodes of bacteremias Anderson et al. [56]
found that treatment with two antibiotics active against
the causative organism was not superior to treatment
with one single antibiotic. However, in a subgroup of pa-
tients with rapidly or ultimately fatal diseases the use of
synergistic as opposed to nonsynergistic antibiotic com-
binations reduced mortality from 78 % to 52 %
(p < 0.005). In a review of 612 episodes of Gram-nega-
tive bloodstream infections, Kreger et al. [45] reported
equivalent mortality rates in patients treated with anti-
biotic combinations or with one single agent (22 % vs.
21 %). However, in a small subset of patients with rapid-
ly fatal disease mortality was 23 % in patients treated
with two antibiotics, compared to 50 % in those treated
with a single antibiotic. However, these early studies
provide limited information relevant to the manage-
ment of patients today. These studies were retrospective
and did not include multivariate analyses to take into
account the role played by confounding factors likely
to affect mortality. Subgroups analyses also included a
relatively small number of patients. Most importantly,
the majority of the antibiotics used at that time would
no longer be considered appropriate today.
Subsequent studies performed in the late 1970s and
early 1980s then evaluated the efficacy of various antibi-
otic combinations for the treatment of Gram-negative
infections, most frequently a b-lactam and an aminogly-
coside. Combinations of penicillin or carbenicillin with
amikacin showed similar clinical efficacy (55 % and
63 %, respectively) as empirical therapy of severe
Gram-negative infections in nonneutropenic cancer pa-
tients [57]. Likewise, ticarcillin plus sisomycin or me-
zlocillin plus sisomycin were found to be equally effec-
tive for the treatment of Gram-negative sepsis [58].
Clinical response rates were higher when patients were
treated with synergistic antibiotic combinations or
when peak serum bactericidal activity were greater
than 1:8. More recently 153 adult ICU patients with
nosocomial pneumonia or bacteremia were randomized
to receive either low- or high-dose isepamicin or amika-
cin given in combination with ceftazidime [59]. An un-
known number of patients were treated with imipenem
instead of ceftazidime. Clinical response rates were
comparable in patients with nosocomial pneumonia
and in those with bacteremia. The proportion of pati-
S 38

Table 2 Studies comparing carbapenem monotherapy with a com- imipenem + netilmicin, MER meropenem, Cd+A ceftazi-
bination of a b-lactam and an aminoglycoside as empirical therapy dime  amikacin, n.a. not available)
of severe sepsis (IMI imipenem, Cx+A cefotaxime + amikacin, I+N
Clinical Overall Mortality due Colonization Superinfec- Relapse Eradication Nephro-
success mortality to infection tions toxicity
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
%Mouton
et al. [63]
(n = 140)
IMI 58/70 83 7/70 10 3/70 4 7/44 16 4/44 9 n.a. ± 19/44 43 1/105 1
Cx+A 54/70 77 7/70 10 2/70 3 6/45 13 7/45 16 ± ± 15/45 33 4/106 4
Cometta
et al. [62]
(n = 280)
IMI 113/142 80 n.a. ± 18/142 13 8/142 6 8/148 5 n.a. ± n.a. ± 0/158 0
I+N 119/138 86 ± ± 13/138 9 13/138 9 11/138 8 ± ± ± ± 6/155 4
Solberg
and
Sjursen
[65]
(n = 53)
MER 56/61 92 n.a. ± n.a. ± n.a. ± 0/37 0 1/37 3 n.a. ± n.a. ±
Cd  A 66/70 94 ± ± ± ± ± ± 1/45 2 0/45 0 ± ± ± ±
Mouton
and Beus-
cart [64]
(n = 237)
MER 97/111 87 7/116 6 n.a. ± n.a. ± n.a. ± 11/116 14 13/116 11 n.a. ±
C+A 98/118 83 8/121 7 ± ± ± ± ± ± 11/121 14 10/121 8 ± ±

ents experiencing at least one adverse event was similar
in the three treatment groups. Some investigators went
even further, treating septic patients with three instead
of two antibiotics [43, 60]. However, intensification of
therapy did not improve clinical outcome, but was asso-
ciated with increased liver toxicity in one study [60].
Combinations of an aminoglycoside and an antibiotic
with activity against anaerobic bacteria have been used
to treat patients with intra-abdominal infections. Clini-
cal response and mortality were comparable among
93 patients with intra-abdominal sepsis who were treat-
ed either with clindamycin plus gentamicin or with
chloramphenicol plus gentamicin (28 of 52, 54 % vs. 20
of 41, 49 %, p = 0.68, and 8 of 52, 15 % vs. 10 of 41,
24 % p = 0.30, respectively) [61].
With the advent of broad-spectrum and bactericidal
antibiotics, such as the extended-spectrum penicillins,
third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins, or the car-
bapenems, the need for aminoglycoside-containing anti-
biotic combinations has subsided. In recent years stud-
ies have compared the efficacy and toxicity of a single
broad-spectrum antibiotic with those of a b-lactam
paired with an aminoglycoside.
Is monotherapy ± with a carbapenem ± as efficacious as
combination therapy with b-lactam and aminoglycoside
as empirical therapy of patients with severe sepsis or
septic shock?
Answer: yes, grade B.
Recommendation
Prospective, randomized controlled studies suggest that
monotherapy with carbapenem antibiotics is as effective
as combination therapy with a b-lactam and an ami-
noglycoside for the empirical treatment of nonneu-
tropenic patients with severe sepsis.
Rationale
Four studies have compared the efficacy and safety of a
carbapenem (i.e., imipenem-cilastatin or meropenem)
to that of a b-lactam paired with an aminoglycoside as
empirical therapy of patients with severe sepsis or septic
shock (Table 2). Imipenem monotherapy was compared
with a combination of imipenem and netilmicin in
313 patients with severe peritonitis, nosocomial bactere-
 S 39

Table 3 Studies comparing monotherapy with a third or a fourth- cefazolin + tobramycin, CEFTA ceftazidime, D+C+T/S doxcycline
generation cephalosporin with a combination of a b-lactam and + chloramphenicol + trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, Best guess
an aminoglycoside as empirical therapy of severe sepsis (MOX ºbest guessº combination, M+N mezlocilin + netilmicin, n.a. not
moxalactam, Conv conventional therapy, CEFO cefotaxime, C+T available)
Regimen Clinical success Overall Mortality due Superinfec- Relapse Eradication Nephrotoxicity
mortality to infection tions
n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Oblinger
et al. [69]
(n = 97)
MOX 33/38 87 8/33 24 2/33 6 2/33 6 n.a. ± n.a. ± 3/41 7
Conv 32/40 80 9/32 28 4/32 13 2/32 6 ± ± ± ± 11/47* 23
Arich
et al. [67]
(n = 47)
CEFO 22/25 88 8/25 32 n.a. ± 1/25 4 n.a. ± n.a. ± 0/25 0
C+T 17/22 77 5/22 23 ± ± 0/22 0 ± ± ± ± 3/22*** 14
White
et al. [70]
(n = 161)
CEFTA n.a. ± 13/35 37 n.a. ± n.a. ± 4/20 20 n.a. ± n.a. ±
D+C+T/S ± ± 20/27** 74 ± ± ± ± 7/19 37 ± ± ± ±
Extermann
et al. [68]
(n = 128)
CEFTA 38/41 93 6/41 15 3/56 5 n.a. ± n.a. ± 20/22 91 n.a. ±
Best guess 28/30 93 4/30 13 0/55 0 ± ± ± ± 14/16 88 ± ±
McCormick
et al. [66]
(n = 128)
CEFTA 50/65 77 13/65 20 n.a. ± n.a. ± n.a. n.a. n.a. ± 2/65 3
M+N 48/63 76 9/63 14 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 8/63* 13
*p = 0.04, **p = 0.05, ***p = 0.06

mia, or pneumonia [62]. Of note, this is the only study in
which the same b-lactam antibiotic was used in both
treatment arms. Overall success rates were similar in
the two treatment groups. Netilmicin accounted for al-
most one-half of the cases of nephrotoxicity that oc-
curred in the combination arm, whereas no case of
nephrotoxicity was attributed to imipenem monothera-
py. Moreover, the addition of netilmicin to imipenem
did not prevent the occurrence of superinfections or of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to imipenem. Thus,
adding an aminoglycoside to imipenem did not improve
outcome or prevent the incidence of resistance, but it in-
creased nephrotoxicity. In a randomized study of 140
ICU patients with suspected pneumonia or bacteremia,
imipenem was found to be as effective as cefotaxime
plus amikacin [63]. As shown in Table 2, meropenem
also was as efficacious as ceftazidime given either alone
or in combination with amikacin [64, 65].
Is monotherapy ± with a 3rd or 4th generation
cephalosporin ± as efficacious as combination therapy
with b-lactam and aminoglycoside as empirical therapy
of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock?
Answer: yes, grade C.
Recommendation
Prospective, randomized controlled studies suggest that
monotherapy with third- or fourth-generation cephalo-
sporins is as effective as combination therapy with a b-
lactam and an aminoglycoside for the empirical treat-
ment of nonneutropenic patients with severe sepsis.
Rationale

Five prospective randomized studies have compared

monotherapy with a third- or fourth-generation cepha-
losporin with combination therapy (Table 3). Ceftazi-
S 40
dime was compared with mezlocillin plus netilmicin for
the treatment of 128 cirrhotic patients with severe sepsis
[66]. Clinical success and mortality rates were similar in
the two treatment groups (p = 0.9 and p = 0.4, respec-
tively). However, renal failure occurred in 13 % of the
patients treated with mezlocillin and netilmicin but in
only 3 % of those who received ceftazidime monothera-
py (p = 0.04). Cefotaxime was compared to cefazolin
plus tobramycin in a study of 47 patients with Gram-
negative bacteremia. The clinical success rate was 88 %
with cefotaxime and 73 % with cefazolin plus tobramy-
cin, a difference that was not statistically significant
[67]. In a multicenter study 128 patients with severe sep-
sis or septic shock were randomized to receive either
single-agent therapy with ceftazidime or combined ther-
apy to be freely chosen by the investigator [68]. Bacteri-
ological eradication rates and clinical success rates were
similar in the two treatment groups. Moxalactam was
reported to be as effective as several antibiotic combina-
tions for the treatment of patients with moxalactam-sen-
sitive organisms [69]. Finally, ceftazidime was found to
more effective that combined therapy with chloram-
phenicol, doxycycline, trimethoprim and sulfamethox-
azole in patients with severe melioidosis, reducing mor-
tality from 74 % to 37 % (p = 0.009) [70].
Is monotherapy ± with an extended-spectrum penicillin ±
as efficacious as combination therapy with b-lactam and
aminoglycoside as empirical therapy of patients with
severe sepsis or septic shock?
Answer: uncertain, grade E.
Recommendation
Extended-spectrum carboxypenicillins or ureidopenicil-
lins combined with b-lactamase inhibitors have been
shown to be effective for the treatment of suspected in-
fections in febrile, neutropenic cancer patients and in
patients with peritonitis or nosocomial pneumonia [71,
72, 73, 74, 75]. However, similar studies have not yet
been carried out in patients with severe sepsis or shock.
Rationale
Extended-spectrum carboxypenicillins or ureidopenicil-
lins combined with b-lactamase inhibitors (such as ticar-
cillin-clavulanate or piperacillin-tazobactam) show ex-
cellent in vitro activity against a broad range of Gram-
negative and Gram-positive bacteria as well as against
anaerobes making them candidates for single-agent
therapy. The Medline search identified only one ran-
domized, prospective study comparing extended-spec-
trum penicillin monotherapy with combination therapy.
In that study 396 premature neonates at risk of early on-
set sepsis were treated with piperacillin or with ampicil-
lin plus amikacin. Mortality rates were similar in both
treatment groups (17 of 200, 9 % vs. 27 of 196, 14 %,
p = 0.13) [76], suggesting that piperacillin is at least as
efficacious as combination therapy for the empirical
therapy of sepsis in premature newborns.
Is monotherapy ± with a monobactam ± as efficacious as
combination therapy with b-lactam and aminoglycoside
as empirical therapy of patients with severe sepsis or
septic shock?
Answer: (a) for the treatment of patients with docu-
mented Gram-negative sepsis: yes, grade C; (b) as em-
pirical therapy of sepsis: no, grade C.
Recommendation
Monotherapy with aztreonam appears to be as effective
as combination of a b-lactam and an aminoglycoside for
the treatment of patients with documented Gram-nega-
tive sepsis. The fact that aztreonam lacks any apprecia-
ble activity against Gram-positive or anaerobic bacteria
precludes its use as empirical single-agent therapy in pa-
tients with severe sepsis.
Rationale
Aztreonam is a monocyclic b-lactam, hence its designa-
tion as monobactam that is active against a broad range
of Gram-negative bacteria, including Enterobacteriace-
ae and most Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It has no relevant
activity against Gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria.
Aztreonam has been used successfully for the treatment
of patients with Gram-negative bacteremia [77]. It has
been shown to be as efficacious as, but less nephrotoxic
than aminoglycosides in patients with severe Gram-neg-
ative infections [78]. However, this study found that su-
perinfections with Enterococcus faecalis were more fre-
quent in patients treated with aztreonam than in those
treated with aminoglycosides. A prospective random-
ized study investigated the role of aztreonam as empiri-
cal therapy of severe sepsis or septic shock caused by
Gram-negative bacteria. In a multicenter study 157
ICU patients with Gram-negative bacillary infections
(78 pneumonias, 28 urinary tract infections, 23 peritoni-
tis and 40 bacteremias) were randomized to be treated
either with aztreonam alone or with a combination of
amikacin with or without a broad-spectrum b-lactam.
Clinical cure was achieved in 44 of 48 patients (92 %)
who received aztreonam and in 25 of 34 patients (73 %)

who received amikacin and b-lactam (p = 0.01) [79].
These studies thus suggested that aztreonam is an effec-
tive treatment of documented Gram-negative infec-
tions. However, aztreonam monotherapy should not be
used in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, as it
is devoid of activity against Gram-positive bacteria.
Is monotherapy ± with a quinolone ± as efficacious as
combination therapy with b-lactam and aminoglycoside
as empirical therapy of patients with severe sepsis or
septic shock
Answer: uncertain, grade E.
Recommendation
Fluoroquinolones have been shown to be highly effec-
tive for the treatment of documented Gram-negative
bloodstream infections. However, data are lacking to
support their use as single-agent treatment of sepsis, es-
pecially as first-generation fluoroquinolones display
suboptimal activities against Gram-positive bacteria.
Furthermore, resistant strains are selected fairly rapidly.
Rationale
Fluoroquinolones are effective therapy for bloodstream
infections caused by enteric Gram-negative bacteria
[80, 81] and therefore are an excellent alternative to b-
lactam antibiotics for the treatment of patients with doc-
umented Gram-negative sepsis. Limited data are avail-
able to evaluate the role of fluoroquinolone antibiotics
as a single agent for the treatment of patients with se-
vere sepsis. The efficacy of ciprofloxacin monotherapy
was compared with that of several b-lactams (aztreo-
nam, ceftazidime, ticarcillin-clavulanate, or imipenem)
given either alone or in combination with an aminogly-
coside in a subset of patients (i.e., with an Acute Physi-
ology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of £20 or
less) enrolled in a multicenter study of 540 patients
with severe infections [82]. Ciprofloxacin treatment
was given intravenously for a minimum of 2±3 days,
and patients were then switched to oral therapy at the
discretion of the investigator. Overall, clinical response
was achieved in 138 of 166 patients (83 %) treated with
ciprofloxacin monotherapy and in 74 of 87 (85 %) treat-
ed with aztreonam, ceftazidime, ticarcillin-clavulanate,
or imipenem. Other studies are needed to assess the
role of fluoroquinolones in this setting, especially as
first-generation fluoroquinolones, such as norfloxacin
and ciprofloxacin, have limited activity against Gram-
positive bacteria. Newer fluoroquinolones, such as levo-
floxacin, trovafloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin
S 41
show enhanced in vitro activities against Gram-positive
bacteria, but demonstration of activity awaits publica-
tion of the results of ongoing studies.
Comments
The data suggest that monotherapy is a safe alternative
to combination therapy for the empirical treatment of
critically ill septic patients. However, compared to the
wealth of studies performed in febrile neutropenic can-
cer patients, only a small number have been conducted
in patients with severe sepsis. Moreover, many of these
studies included fewer than 200 patients, and their sta-
tistical power is therefore limited. The fact that mono-
therapy with carbapenem, third- or fourth-generation
cephalosporins or ureidopenicillins plus b-lactamase in-
hibitors (i.e., piperacillin-tazobactam) have been shown
to be as effective as b-lactam antibiotics paired with an
aminoglycoside in large multicenter studies in severely
compromised neutropenic patients certainly lends fur-
ther support to the present recommendations [7]. How-
ever, critically ill septic patients differ markedly from
neutropenic cancer patients. Capillary leak syndrome
and multiorgan dysfunction are much more frequent in
patients with severe sepsis or septic shock than in neu-
tropenic cancer patients. Such conditions are likely to
influence both the volume of distribution and metabo-
lism of the antibiotics, which may result in altered phar-
macokinetics and ultimately may affect drug efficacy
and toxicity. One should therefore be concerned that
treatment guidelines for the most severely ill septic pati-
ents tend to rely heavily on the results of trials accom-
plished in the neutropenic host. There is undoubtedly a
need for large, prospective, randomized trials to assess
the efficacy and toxicity of any new antibiotic in patients
with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Monotherapy should not be regarded as a universal
panacea to be used indiscriminately. Despite a lack of
clearcut advantage, some clinicians may still prefer to
rely on b-lactam and aminoglycoside combinations to
treat patients with nosocomial pneumonia or those
with infections caused by Pseudomonas, Serratia, or En-
terobacter species. The potential benefit from additive
or synergistic effects and the possible prevention of
emerging resistant bacteria must be weighed against
the risk of increased toxicity. Aminoglycoside-contain-
ing regimens have been shown repeatedly to increase
the incidence of nephrotoxicity and/or ototoxicity. Fur-
thermore, the concept that adding an aminoglycoside
may prevent the emergence of resistance has been chal-
lenged by the results of a recent study in patients with
severe nosocomial infections [62]. Pseudomonas aeru-
ginosa resistant to imipenem have been found to be as
frequent in patients treated with netilmicin and imipe-
nem as in those treated with imipenem alone. Whether
S 42
up-front empirical therapy should comprise a specific
anti-Gram-positive agent is discussed below.
Studies comparing single-agent therapeutic strategies
Aminoglycosides were among the first antibiotics to be
studied as single-agents for the treatment of Gram-neg-
ative infections. In the late 1970s and early 1980s several
studies compared the efficacy and safety of various am-
inoglycosides. In a prospective, double-blind study, ami-
kacin or gentamicin was used to treat 174 patients with
suspected severe Gram-negative infections [83]. Favor-
able clinical response rates were 77 % (30 of 39) and
78 % (25 of 32), respectively. Both aminoglycosides
were accompanied with a high rate of serious adverse
events. Definite nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity oc-
curred in 5 of 62 (8 %) and 2 of 32 (6 %) patients treated
with amikacin and in 7 of 62 (11 %) and 3 of 30 (10 %)
patients treated with gentamicin. Netilmicin and amika-
cin were used to treat 80 patients with severe sepsis due
to Gram-negative bacteria, including bacteremias, geni-
tourinary tract infections, and pneumonias [84]. A fa-
vorable clinical response was observed in 30 of 34 pati-
ents treated with netilmicin (88 %) and in 26 of 33 treat-
ed with amikacin (79 %, p = 0.34). The frequency of
nephrotoxicity was 38 % with netilmicin (13 of 34) and
28 % with amikacin (8 of 29) and that of ototoxicity
was 9 % (3 of 34) and 24 % (7 of 29) respectively, but
the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.42
and 0.16, respectively). Overall, the various aminoglyco-
sides (i.e., gentamicin, tobramycin, netilmicin, and ami-
kacin) have been shown to be equally effective as empir-
ical monotherapy of Gram-negative sepsis. A constant
finding in all these studies was the high incidence of
aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.
These serious adverse events are a major concern, espe-
cially in critically ill septic patients, who are already at
high risk of developing multiple organ dysfunction. To-
day aminoglycosides should not be used as single-agent
empirical therapy of severe sepsis, as antibiotics such as
extended-spectrum penicillins, third- or fourth-genera-
tion cephalosporins, or carbapenems have a broader
spectrum of activity and are less toxic than aminoglyco-
sides.
Are there differences between third-generation and
fourth-generation cephalosporins and carbapenem
antibiotics as empirical therapy of patients with severe
sepsis or septic shock?
Answer: no, grade C.
Recommendation
Third-generation and fourth-generation cephalosporins
and carbapenem antibiotics are equally effective as em-
pirical therapy in patients with severe sepsis.
Rationale
Four studies have compared the efficacy and safety of a
third-generation cephalosporin to that of a fourth-gen-
eration cephalosporin or a carbapenem. An analysis
was carried out on 226 patients with microbiologically
confirmed septicemia selected from a pool of 15 phase
II and phase III studies of cefpirome [85]; 176 patients
were treated with cefpirome and 50 with ceftazidime.
A satisfactory clinical response was found in 131 of 176
(74 %) cefpirome recipients and in 34 of 50 (68 %)
ceftazidime recipients (p = 0.47). A subsequent ran-
domized multicenter study treated 372 patients with se-
vere sepsis and suspected bacteremias empirically with
cefpirome or with ceftazidime [86]. The study protocol
allowed the addition of metronidazole, an aminoglyco-
side, or a glycopeptide antibiotic whenever indicated.
Of the patients in the cefpirome group 62 % received
monotherapy and of those the ceftazidime group 63 %.
Clinical success rates in the intent-to-treat analysis
were 65 % (123 of 188) and 70 % (132 of 188), respec-
tively. These two studies showed that cefpirome and
ceftazidime are equally effective for the treatment of
patients with severe sepsis. Ceftazidime and cefepime
have also been found to be equally effective in a small
study of 28 severely ill patients with suspected Gram-
negative bacteremia [87].
Lastly, 45 patients with pneumonias or bacteremias
were randomized to receive either imipenem or ceftazi-
dime therapy. A favorable clinical response was ob-
served in 17 of 21 (81 %) patients receiving ceftazidime
and in 16 of 24 (67 %) receiving imipenem (p = 0.33)
[88]. Despite limited statistical power due to the small
number of patients enrolled, these four studies suggest
that third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and
carbapenem antibiotics are equally effective as empiri-
cal therapy in patients with severe sepsis.
Are there clinical conditions justifying the use of
empirical anti-Gram-positive therapy in patients with
severe sepsis?
Answer: yes, grade E.

Recommendation
The indiscriminate use of vancomycin or teicoplanin for
presumed Gram-positive infections in patients with se-
vere sepsis and septic shock should be avoided. Glyco-
peptides are appropriate in severely ill patients with
catheter-related infections or in centers in which methi-
cillin-resistant staphylococci predominate. However,
the possible clinical benefit associated with the empiri-
cal use of vancomycin or teicoplanin should be weighed
against the risks of selecting resistant organisms and of
increased toxicity, especially when vancomycin is given
in combination with an aminoglycoside [89] or other
nephrotoxic agent. To further reduce the risk of the
emergence of vancomycin-resistant staphylococci or en-
terococci, empirical vancomycin therapy should also be
rapidly discontinued in patients in whom Gram-positive
infections has been ruled out. Finally, it is rarely, if ever,
appropriate to use vancomycin alone as empirical thera-
py since most cases require additional Gram-negative
coverage, at least until microbiological results are avail-
able.
Rationale
In recent years many institutions have experienced a
major change in the cause of bacterial infections occur-
ring in ICU patients with sepsis. While Gram-negative
bacteria predominated until the middle 1980s, Gram-
positive bacteria now account for approximately one-
half of the infections occurring in patients with severe
sepsis and septic shock [20]. Moreover, methicillin-resis-
tant S. aureus and methicillin-resistant coagulase-nega-
tive staphylococci are responsible for a majority of sta-
phylococcal infections in some institutions. The fre-
quency of penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae is also in-
creasing in many areas of the world. Does this epidemi-
ological context justify the empirical use of glycopeptide
antibiotics (i.e., vancomycin and teicoplanin) on a rou-
tine basis in all patients with severe sepsis and septic
shock? The literature does not offer an answer to that
question. To our knowledge, no study has prospectively
examined the role of glycopeptide antibiotics in the
management of nonneutropenic patients with severe
sepsis. All recent studies have been performed in neu-
tropenic cancer patients, in whom viridans streptococci
and coagulase-negative staphylococci are a frequent
cause of infection [7]. Controversy still exists as to the
need for empirical specific anti-Gram-positive therapy
at the onset of fever in neutropenic cancer patients [90,
91, 92]. Although some studies have suggested that the
empirical use of vancomycin or teicoplanin at the initia-
tion of empirical therapy is preferable, others have
yielded data that do not support that concept. Prospec-
tive studies are ongoing to further address that question.
S 43
Are antifungal agents indicated as empirical therapy of
patients with severe sepsis or septic shock?
Answer: no, grade E.
Recommendation
Antifungal agents, such as fluconazole, should not be
used on a routine basis as empirical therapy in patients
with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Rationale
Since the middle 1980s fungi have emerged worldwide
as an increasingly frequent cause of nosocomial infec-
tions in critically ill patients and are associated with sig-
nificant morbidity and high mortality [93, 94, 95, 96]. A
recent survey of bloodstream infections found ICUs to
have the highest incidence of candidemia, accounting
for 45 % of all episodes of fungemia [97]. A 1-day point
prevalence study carried out in 1417 ICUs in western
European countries isolated fungi in 17 % of all ICU-ac-
quired infections [98]. However, it is unclear whether all
these fungal isolates were the causal agent of infections
rather than colonizing micro-organisms. Clinical mani-
festations of candidiasis are usually not specific, and
standard culture techniques and tests for detection of
Candida antigens or metabolites lack sensitivity. Taken
together these facts might support the empirical use of
antifungal agents for the treatment of the critically ill
ICU patient with severe sepsis or septic shock. Howev-
er, recent epidemiological studies and multicenter trials
have shown that fungi account for only 5 % of all cases
of severe sepsis or septic shock (Fig. 1B), which would
not justify the use of antifungal therapy on a routine ba-
sis. Since Candida infections from species other than C.
albicans are increasing, along with the resistance to az-
oles, one should even be more cautious with the use of
this class of antifungal agents.
Are azoles as effective as amphotericin B for the
treatment of patients with candidemia?
Answer: yes, grade A.
Recommendation
Fluconazole is as effective as and less toxic than ampho-
tericin B for the treatment of candidemia in nonneu-
tropenic patients. However, if the patient has been
treated previously with fluconazole, it might be prudent
to begin therapy with amphotericin B while waiting for
S 44

the identification of the Candida species and for the re-
sults of susceptibility testing. Infections caused by Can-
dida strains other than C. albicans with reduced suscep-
tibility to azoles are more commonly seen in patients
who have received previous antifungal therapy, includ-
ing azoles, than in those who did not. Among the other
Candida strains, C. krusei is intrinsically resistant to
fluconazole, and C. glabrata is relatively resistant to
fluconazole. Many investigators consider amphothericin
B the agent of choice to treat unstable patients with can-
didemia [48]. Whether 5-fluorocytosine should be com-
bined with amphotericin B in these patients is debat-
able. No data have shown that combining these agents
improve outcome of patients with candidemia.
Rationale
A recent study has shown that Candida is the fourth
most frequent cause of bloodstream infections [99]. Be-
tween one-fourth and one-half of all episodes of candi-
demia occur in ICUs. Seven comparative studies com-
pared the efficacy of fluconazole and amphotericin B
for the treatment of candidemia. A large multicenter
study treated 206 nonneutropenic patients with candi-
demia with fluconazole (400 mg per day) or with am-
photericin B (0.5±0.6 mg/kg per day). Most of these pa-
tients had catheter-related candidemia. Fluconazole
was as effective as amphotericin B (success rate were
72 % and 79 %, respectively) [100]. The proportion of
patients with hypokalemia and elevated blood urea ni-
trogen or serum creatinine were significantly lower in
the fluconazole group than in the amphotericin B group
(p < 0.001 and p = 0.006). In a large multicenter, pro-
spective observational study of the morbidity and mor-
tality of candidemia, intravenous amphotericin B was
given to 227 patients and fluconazole to 67 patients
[49]. Mortality at day 30 was not significantly different
in patients treated with amphotericin B and in those
treated with fluconazole (31 % vs. 27 %, p = 0.6). An-
other randomized study treated 50 patients treated
with fluconazole and 53 with amphotericin B. Clinical
success rate (24 of 42, 57 % vs. 26 of 42, 62 %, respec-
tively, p = 0.82) and mortality at day 14 (13 of 50, 26 %
vs. 11 of 53, 21 %, respectively, p = 0.69) were compara-
ble in the two treatment groups [101]. Two smaller stud-
ies yielded analogous results. Fluconazole was found to
be as effective as amphotericin B in 90 ICU patients
with cancer and systemic Candida infections (i.e., blood-
stream infections, pneumonia or peritonitis; clinical re-
sponse rates: 33 of 45, 73 % vs. 32 of 45, 71 %, p = 0.8)
[102]. The efficacy and safety of fluconazole was com-
pared to that of amphotercin B for the treatment of dis-
seminated fungal sepsis in neonates [103]. Case fatality
rates were 33 % (4 of 12) in the fluconazole group and
45 % (5 of 11) in the amphotericin B group (p = 0.68).
Adverse effects were less frequent in neonates treated
with fluconazole than in those who received amphoteri-
cin B. In all studies there were fewer adverse events, es-
pecially nephrotoxicity, hypokalemia, fever, and chills,
with fluconazole than with amphotericin B.
There is a lack of dose-finding studies on which to
base a recommendation on what dose of antifungal
agents to use for the treatment of patients with candi-
demia. A dose of 400 mg/d has been used in most fluco-
nazole studies. Whether higher daily doses of fluconaz-
ole would be more effective is unclear. One study of
65 patients with fungemia due to C. albicans found a
clinical response rate of 60 % in patients treated with
5 mg/kg fluconazole once daily and one of 83 % in those
who received a daily dose of 10 mg/kg [104]. Of note, 18
of 20 international experts who participated in a consen-
sus conference on the management of Candida infec-
tions would use a daily dose of 400 mg fluconazole to
treat stable patients with candidemia; in patients who
are unstable or deteriorating, one-half of the experts
would use a dose of 800 mg fluconazole while the other
one-half would use amphotericin B [48]. However, these
opinions were based primarily on personal experience.
Prospective randomized trials are needed to address
these issues.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr. Jacques Cornuz for as-
sistance in the literature search and statistical analysis, and to Prof.
Jonathan Cohen for critical reading of the manuscript. This work
was supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Founda-
tion to T. C. (32-49129.96). T. C. is recipient of a career award
from the Swiss National Science Foundation (32-48916.96).
M. P.G. is recipient of a career award from the Bristol-Myers
Squibb Foundation.

References
1. Astiz ME, Rackow EC (1998) Septic
shock. Lancet 351: 1501±1505
2. Wheeler AP, Bernard GR (1999)
Treating patients with severe sepsis.
N Engl J Med 340: 207±214
3. Shenep JL (1996) Septic shock. Adv
Pediatr Infect Dis 12: 209±241
4. Bone RC, Sibbald WJ, Sprung CL
(1992) The ACCP-SCCM consensus
conference on sepsis and organ failure.
Chest 101: 1481±1483
5. Young LS (1995) Sepsis syndrome. In:
Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin E
(ed) Principles and practice of infec-
tious diseases. Churchill Livingstone,
New York, pp 690±705

6. Calandra T, Cometta A (1991) Antibi-
otic therapy for gram-negative bacter-
emia. Infect Dis Clin North Am 5:
817±834
7. Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP,
et al (1997) 1997 guidelines for the use
of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic
patients with unexplained fever. Infec-
tious Diseases Society of America.
Clin Infect Dis 25: 551±573
8. Fisher CJ, Slotman GJ, Opal SM, et al
(1994) Initial evaluation of human re-
combinant interleukin-1 receptor an-
tagonist in the treatment of sepsis syn-
drome: a randomized, open-label, pla-
cebo-controlled multicenter trial. Crit
Care Med 22: 12±21
9. Abraham E, Wunderink R, Silverman
H, et al (1995) Efficacy and safety of
monoclonal antibody to human tumor
necrosis factor a in patients with sepsis
syndrome. A randomized, controlled,
double-blind, multicenter clinical trial.
JAMA 273: 934±941
10. Zeni F, Freeman B, Natanson C (1997)
Anti-inflammatory therapies to treat
sepsis and septic shock: a reassess-
ment. Crit Care Med 25: 1095±1100
11. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, et
al (1995) Incidence, risk factors, and
outcome of severe sepsis and septic
shock in adults. A multicenter pro-
spective study in intensive care units.
French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis.
JAMA 274: 968±974
12. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J
(1996) Bacteremia and severe sepsis
in adults: a multicenter prospective
survey in ICUs and wards of 24 hospi-
tals. French Bacteremia-Sepsis Study
Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
154: 617±624
13. Cohen J, Carlet J, for the INTER-
SEPT Study Group (1996) INTER-
SEPT: an international, multicenter,
placebo-controlled trial of monoclonal
antibody to human tumor necrosis fac-
tor-a in patients with sepsis. Crit Care
Med 24: 1431±1440
14. Sands KE, Bates DW, Lanken PN, et
al (1997) Epidemiology of sepsis syn-
drome in 8 academic medical centers.
Academic Medical Center Consor-
tium Sepsis Project Working Group.
JAMA 278: 234±240
15. Muckart DJ, Bhagwanjee S (1997)
American College of Chest Physi-
cians/Society of Critical Care Medi-
cine Consensus Conference definitions
of the systemic inflammatory response
syndrome and allied disorders in rela-
tion to critically injured patients. Crit
Care Med 25: 1789±1795
16. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH,
Tugwell P (1991) Clinical epidemiolo-
gy. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
17. Sackett DL (1989) Rules of evidence
and clinical recommendations on the
use of antithrombotic agents. Chest
95: 2S-4S
18. The Veterans Administration System-
ic Sepsis Cooperative Study Group
(1987) Effect of high-dose glucocorti-
coid therapy on mortality in patients
with clinical signs of systemic sepsis.
N Engl J Med 317: 659±665
19. Bryant RE, Hood AF, Hood CE, Koe-
nig MG (1971) Factors affecting mor-
tality of gram-negative rod bactere-
mia. Arch Intern Med 127: 120±128
20. Freid MA, Vosti KL (1968) The im-
portance of underlying disease in pati-
ents with gram-negative bacteremia.
Arch Intern Med 121: 418±423
21. Klastersky J, Cappel R, Debusscher L
(1971) Effectiveness of betametha-
sone in management of severe infec-
tions. A double-blind study. N Engl J
Med 284: 1248±1250
22. McCabe WR, Jackson GG (1962)
Gram negative bacteremia. Arch In-
tern Med 110: 92±100
23. Schummer W (1976) Steroids in the
treatment of clinical septic shock.
Ann Surg 184: 333±341
24. Young LS, Martin WJ, Meyer RD,
Weinstein RJ, Anderson ET (1977)
Gram-negative rod bacteremia: micro-
biologic, immunologic, and therapeu-
tic considerations. Ann Intern Med
86: 456±471
25. Abraham E, Glauser MP, Butler T, et
al (1997) p55 tumor necrosis factor re-
ceptor fusion protein in the treatment
of patients with severe sepsis and sep-
tic shock. A randomized controlled
multicenter trial. JAMA 277:
1531±1538
26. Abraham E, Anzueto A, Gutierrez G,
et al (1998) Double-blind randomised
controlled trial of monoclonal anti-
body to human tumour necrosis factor
in treatment of septic shock. NORA-
SEPT II Study Group. Lancet 351:
929±933
27. Boillot A, Capellier G, Racadot E, et
al (1995) Pilot clinical trial of an anti-
TNF alpha monoclonal antibody for
the treatment of septic shock. Clin In-
tensive Care 6: 52±56
28. Dhainaut JF, Tenaillon A, Le Tulzo Y,
et al (1994) Platelet-activating factor
receptor antagonist BN 52021 in the
treatment of severe sepsis: a random-
ized, double-blind, placebo-con-
trolled, multicenter clinical trial. BN
52021 Sepsis Study Group. Crit Care
Med 22: 1720±1728
S 45
29. Dhainaut JF, Vincent JL, Richard C, et
al (1995) CDP571, a humanized anti-
body to human tumor necrosis factor-
alpha: safety, pharmacokinetics, im-
mune response, and influence of the
antibody on cytokine concentrations
in patients with septic shock. CPD571
Sepsis Study Group. Crit Care Med
23: 1461±1469
30. Dhainaut JF, Tenaillon A, Hemmer M,
et al (1998) Confirmatory platelet-ac-
tivating factor receptor antagonist trial
in patients with severe gram-negative
bacterial sepsis: a phase III, random-
ized, double-blind, placebo-con-
trolled, multicenter trial. BN 52021
Sepsis Investigator Group. Crit Care
Med 26: 1963±1971
31. Fisher CJ, Dhainaut JF, Opal SM, et al
(1994) Recombinant human interleu-
kin 1 receptor antagonist in the treat-
ment of patients with sepsis syndrome:
results from a randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA
271: 1836±1843
32. Fisher CJ, Agosti JM, Opal SM, et al
(1996) Treatment of septic shock with
the tumor necrosis factor receptor: Fc
fusion protein. N Engl J Med 334:
1697±1702
33. Fisher CJ Jr, Opal SM, Dhainaut JF, et
al (1993) Influence of an anti-tumor
necrosis factor monoclonal antibody
on cytokine levels in patients with sep-
sis. The CB0006 Sepsis Syndrome
Study Group. Crit Care Med 21:
318±327
34. Opal SM, Fisher CJ, Dhainaut JF, et al
(1997) Confirmatory interleukin-1 re-
ceptor antagonist trial in severe sepsis:
a phase III, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.
Crit Care Med 25: 1115±1124
35. Reinhart K, Wiegand-Löhnert C,
Grimminger F, et al (1996) Assess-
ment of the safety and efficacy of the
monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor
antibody-fragment, MAK 195F, in pa-
tients with sepsis and septic shock: a
multicenter, randomized, placebo-con-
trolled, dose-ranging study. Crit Care
Med 24: 733±742
36. Saravolatz LD, Wherry JC, Spooner
C, et al (1994) Clinical safety, tolerabil-
ity, and pharmacokinetics of murine
monoclonal antibody to human tumor
necrosis factor-a. J Infect Dis 169:
214±217
37. Cohen J, Abraham E (1999) Microbio-
logic findings and correlations with se-
rum tumor necrosis factor-alpha in pa-
tients with severe sepsis and septic
shock. J Infect Dis 180: 116±121
S 46
38. Edmond MB, Wallace SE, McClish
DK, et al (1999) Nosocomial blood-
stream infections in United States hos-
pitals: a three-year analysis. Clin Infect
Dis 29: 239±244
39. Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Messer SA,
Edmond MB, Wenzel RP (1998) Na-
tional surveillance of nosocomial
blood stream infection due to species
of Candida other than Candida albi-
cans: frequency of occurrence and an-
tifungal susceptibility in the SCOPE
Program. SCOPE Participant Group.
Surveillance and Control of Pathogens
of Epidemiologic. Diagn Microbiol In-
fect Dis 30: 121±129
40. Bernard GR, Reines HD, Halushka
PV, et al (1991) Prostacyclin and
thromboxane A2 formation is in-
creased in human sepsis syndrome. Ef-
fects of cyclooxygenase inhibition. Am
Rev Respir Dis 144: 1095±1101
41. Bernard GR, Wheeler AP, Russell JA,
et al (1997) The effects of ibuprofen on
the physiology and survival of patients
with sepsis. N Engl J Med 336: 912±918
42. Haupt MT, Jastremski MS, Clemmer
TP, Metz CA, Goris GB (1991) Effect
of ibuprofen in patients with severe
sepsis: a randomized, double-blind,
multicenter study. The Ibuprofen
Study Group. Crit Care Med 19:
1339±1347
43. Klastersky J, Coppens L, Meunier-
Carpentier F, Menday AP (1980) Car-
benicillin plus cefazolin with or with-
out mecillinam as an early treatment
of bacteremia caused by gram-nega-
tive organisms: randomized double-
blind study. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 18: 437±442
44. Friedman G, Silva E, Vincent JL
(1998) Has the mortality of septic
shock changed with time. Crit Care
Med 26: 2078±2086
45. Kreger BE, Craven DE, McCabe WR
(1980) Gram-negative bacteremia. IV.
Re-evaluation of clinical features and
treatment in 612 patients. Am J Med
68: 344±355
46. Pittet D, Rangel-Frausto S, Li N, et al
(1995) Systemic inflammatory re-
sponse syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis
and septic shock: incidence, morbidi-
ties and outcomes in surgical ICU pati-
ents. Intensive Care Med 21: 302±309
47. Linden PK, Pasculle AW, McDevitt D,
Kramer DJ (1997) Effect of quinupri-
stin/dalfopristin on the outcome of
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
faecium bacteraemia: comparison
with a control cohort. J Antimicrob
Chemother 39 [Suppl A]:145±151
48. Edwards JE Jr, Bodey GP, Bowden
RA, et al (1997) International Confer-
ence for the Development of a Con-
sensus on the Management and Pre-
vention of Severe Candidal Infections.
Clin Infect Dis 25: 43±59
49. Nguyen MH, Peacock JE Jr, Tanner
DC, et al (1995) Therapeutic ap-
proaches in patients with candidemia.
Evaluation in a multicenter, prospec-
tive, observational study. Arch Intern
Med 155: 2429±2435
50. Nolla-Salas J, Sitges-Serra A, Leon-
Gil C, et al (1997) Candidemia in non-
neutropenic critically ill patients: anal-
ysis of prognostic factors and assess-
ment of systemic antifungal therapy.
Study Group of Fungal Infection in
the ICU. Intensive Care Med 23: 23±30
51. Calandra T, Glauser MP (1986) Immu-
nocompromised animal models for the
study of antibiotic combinations. Am J
Med 80: 45±52
52. Klastersky J, Zinner SH (1982) Syner-
gistic combinations of antibiotics in
gram-negative bacillary infections.
Rev Infect Dis 4: 294±301
53. De Jongh CA, Joshi JH, Thompson
BW, et al (1986) A double beta-lactam
combination versus an aminoglyco-
side-containing regimen as empiric an-
tibiotic therapy for febrile granulocy-
topenic cancer patients. Am J Med 80:
101±111
54. Gribble MJ, Chow AW, Naiman SC, et
al (1983) Prospective randomized trial
of piperacillin monotherapy versus
carboxypenicillin-aminoglycoside
combination regimens in the empirical
treatment of serious bacterial infec-
tions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
24: 388±393
55. Ceftazidime combined with a short or
long course of amikacin for empirical
therapy of gram-negative bacteremia
in cancer patients with granulocytope-
nia. The EORTC International Anti-
microbial Therapy Cooperative
Group (1987) N Engl J Med 317:
1692±1698
56. Anderson ET, Young LS, Hewitt WL
(1978) Antimicrobial synergism in the
therapy of gram-negative rod bactere-
mia. Chemotherapy 24: 45±54
57. Klastersky J, Meunier-Carpentier F,
Prevost JM (1977) Significance of anti-
microbial synergism for the outcome
of gram negative sepsis. Am J Med
Sci 273: 157±167
58. Hanson B, Coppens L, Klastersky J
(1982) Comparative studies of ticarcil-
lin and mezlocillin plus sisomicin in
Gram-negative bacillary bacteraemia
and bronchopneumonia. J Antimicrob
Chemother 10: 335±341
59. Beaucaire G (1995) Evaluation of the
efficacy and safety of isepamicin com-
pared with amikacin in the treatment
of nosocomial pneumonia and septi-
caemia. J Chemother 7 Suppl 2:
165±173
60. Korvick JA, Peacock JE Jr, Muder
RR, Wheeler RR, Yu VL (1992) Addi-
tion of rifampin to combination antibi-
otic therapy for Pseudomonas aerugin-
osa bacteremia: prospective trial using
the Zelen protocol. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 36: 620-625
61. Lennard ES, Minshew BH, Dellinger
EP, et al (1985) Stratified outcome
comparison of clindamycin-gentami-
cin vs chloramphenicol-gentamicin for
treatment of intra-abdominal sepsis.
Arch Surg 120: 889±898
62. Cometta A, Baumgartner JD, Lew D,
et al (1994) Prospective randomized
comparison of imipenem monothera-
py with imipenem plus netilmicin for
treatment of severe infections in non-
neutropenic patients. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 38: 1309±1313
63. Mouton Y, Deboscker Y, Bazin C, et al
(1990) Prospective, randomized, con-
trolled study of imipenem-cilastatin
versus cefotaxime-amikacin in the
treatment of lower respiratory tract in-
fection and septicemia at intensive
care units. Presse Med 19: 607±612
64. Mouton YJ, Beuscart C (1995) Empir-
ical monotherapy with meropenem in
serious bacterial infections. Merope-
nem Study Group. J Antimicrob
Chemother 36 [Suppl A]:145±156
65. Solberg CO, Sjursen H (1995) Safety
and efficacy of meropenem in patients
with septicaemia: a randomised com-
parison with ceftazidime, alone or
combined with amikacin. J Antimic-
rob Chemother 36 [Suppl A]:157±166
66. McCormick PA, Greenslade L, Kib-
bler CC, et al (1997) A prospective
randomized trial of ceftazidime versus
netilmicin plus mezlocillin in the em-
pirical therapy of presumed sepsis in
cirrhotic patients. Hepatology 25:
833±836
67. Arich C, Gouby A, Bengler C, et al
(1987) Comparison of the efficacy of
cefotaxime alone and the combination
cefazolin-tobramycin in the treatment
of enterobacterial septicemia. Pathol
Biol (Paris) 35: 613±615
68. Extermann M, Regamey C, Humair L,
et al (1995) Initial treatment of sepsis
in non-neutropenic patients: ceftazi-
dime alone versus 'best guess' com-
bined antibiotic therapy. Chemothera-
py 41: 306±315

69. Oblinger MJ, Bowers JT, Sande MA,
Mandell GL (1982) Moxalactam ther-
apy vs. standard antimicrobial therapy
for selected serious infections. Rev In-
fect Dis 4 [Suppl]:S639±S649
70. White NJ, Dance DA, Chaowagul W,
et al (1989) Halving of mortality of se-
vere melioidosis by ceftazidime. Lan-
cet II:697±701
71. Brismar B, Malmborg AS, Tunevall G,
et al (1992) Piperacillin-tazobactam
versus imipenem-cilastatin for treat-
ment of intra-abdominal infections.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 36:
2766±2773
72. Eklund AE, Nord CE (1993) A ran-
domized multicenter trial of piperacil-
lin/tazobactam versus imipenem/ci-
lastatin in the treatment of severe in-
tra-abdominal infections. Swedish
Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemo-
ther 31 [Suppl A]:79±85
73. Jaccard C, Troillet N, Harbarth S, et al
(1998) Prospective randomized com-
parison of imipenem-cilastatin and
piperacillin-tazobactam in nosocomial
pneumonia or peritonitis. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 42: 2966±2972
74. Mouton Y, Leroy O, Beuscart C, et al
(1993) Efficacy, safety and tolerance
of parenteral piperacillin/tazobactam
in the treatment of patients with lower
respiratory tract infections. J Antimic-
rob Chemother 31 [Suppl A]:87±95
75. Polk HC Jr, Fink MP, Laverdiere M, et
al (1993) Prospective randomized
study of piperacillin/tazobactam thera-
py of surgically treated intra-abdomi-
nal infection. The Piperacillin/Tazo-
bactam Intra-Abdominal Infection
Study Group. Am Surg 59: 598±605
76. Hammerberg O, Kurnitzki C, Watts J,
Rosenbloom D (1989) Randomized
trial using piperacillin versus ampicil-
lin and amikacin for treatment of pre-
mature neonates with risk factors for
sepsis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
8: 241±244
77. Scully BE, Henry SA (1985) Clinical
experience with aztreonam in the
treatment of gram-negative bactere-
mia. Rev Infect Dis 7 [Suppl 4]:
S789±S793
78. Gudiol F, Pallares R, Ariza X, et al
(1986) Comparative clinical evalua-
tion of aztreonam versus aminoglyco-
sides in gram-negative septicaemia.
J Antimicrob Chemother 17: 661±671
79. Rabinad E, Bosch-Perez A (1989) A
multicenter comparative trial of azt-
reonam in the treatment of gram-neg-
ative infections in compromised inten-
sive-care patients. Chemotherapy 35
[Suppl 1]:1±7
80. Bouza P, Garcia FT, Perez FM, et al
(1996) Treatment of CAPD-related
peritonitis with ciprofloxacin: results
after seven years. Adv Perit Dial 12:
185±188
81. Extermann M, Regamey C (1994) Em-
pirical antibiotic treatment of sepsis in
non-neutropenic patients: single agent
or combination therapy? Infection 22:
1±3
82. Krumpe PE, Cohn S, Garreltes J, et al
(1999) Intravenous and oral mono- or
combination-therapy in the treatment
of severe infections: ciprofloxacin ver-
sus standard antibiotic therapy. Cipro-
floxacin Study Group. J Antimicrob
Chemother 43 [Suppl A]:117±128
83. Smith CR, Baughman KL, Edwards
CQ, Rogers JF, Lietman PS (1977)
Controlled comparison of amikacin
and gentamicin. N Engl J Med 296:
349±353
84. Bock BV, Edelstein PH, Meyer RD
(1980) Prospective comparative study
of efficacy and toxicity of netilmicin
and amikacin. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 17: 217±225
85. Norrby SR, Geddes AM (1993) Effica-
cy of cefpirome in the treatment of
septicaemia. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl
91: 51±59
86. Norrby SR, Geddes AM, Shah PM
(1998) Randomized comparative trial
of cefpirome versus ceftazidime in the
empirical treatment of suspected bac-
teraemia or sepsis. Multicentre Study
Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 42:
503±509
87. Schrank JH Jr, Kelly JW, McAllister
CK (1995) Randomized comparison
of cefepime and ceftazidime for treat-
ment of hospitalized patients with
gram-negative bacteremia. Clin Infect
Dis 20: 56±58
88. Hartenauer U, Weilemann LS, Bod-
mann KF, et al (1990) Comparative
clinical trial of ceftazidime and imipe-
nem/cilastatin in patients with severe
nosocomial pneumonias and septicae-
mias. J Hosp Infect 15 [Suppl A]:61±64
89. European Organization for Research
and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)
International Antimicrobial Therapy
Cooperative Group and the National
Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical
Trials Group (1991) Vancomycin add-
ed to empirical combination antibiotic
therapy for fever in granulocytopenic
cancer patients. J Infect Dis 163:
951±958
90. Giamarellou H (1995) Empiric thera-
py for infections in the febrile, neutro-
penic, compromised host. Med Clin
North Am 79: 559±580
S 47
91. Karp JE, Dick JD, Angelopulos C, et
al (1986) Empiric use of vancomycin
during prolonged treatment-induced
granulocytopenia. Randomized, dou-
ble-blind, placebo-controlled clinical
trial in patients with acute leukemia.
Am J Med 81: 237±242
92. Rubin M, Hathorn JW, Marshall D, et
al (1988) Gram-positive infections
and the use of vancomycin in 550 epi-
sodes of fever and neutropenia. Ann
Intern Med 108: 30±35
93. Banerjee SN, Emori TG, Culver DH,
et al (1991) Secular trends in nosoco-
mial primary bloodstream infections
in the United States, 1980±1989. Na-
tional Nosocomial Infections Surveil-
lance System. Am J Med 91: 86S-89S
94. Beck-SaguØ CM, Jarvis WR, and the
National Nosocomial Infections Sur-
veillance System (1993) Secular trends
in the epidemiology of nosocomial
fungal infections in the United States,
1980±1990. J Infect Dis 167: 1247±1251
95. Fisher-Hoch SP, Hutwagner L (1995)
Opportunistic candidiasis: an epidemic
of the 1980s. Clin Infect Dis 21:
897±904
96. Fraser VJ, Jones M, Dunkel J, et al
(1992) Candidemia in a tertiary care
hospital: epidemiology, risk factors,
and predictors of mortality. Clin Infect
Dis 15: 414±421
97. Wenzel RP (1995) Nosocomial candi-
demia: risk factors and attributable
mortality. Clin Infect Dis 20:
1531±1534
98. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al
(1995) The prevalence of nosocomial
infection in intensive care units in Eu-
rope. Results of the European Preva-
lence of Infection in Intensive Care
(EPIC) Study. EPIC International Ad-
visory Committee. JAMA 274:
639±644
99. Rex JH, Bennett JE, Sugar AM, et al
(1994) A randomized trial comparing
fluconazole with amphotericin B for
the treatment of candidemia in pati-
ents without neutropenia. Candidemia
Study Group and the National Insti-
tute. N Engl J Med 331: 1325±1330
100. Rangel-Frausto MS, Wiblin T, Blum-
berg HM, et al (1999) National epide-
miology of mycoses survey (NEMIS):
variations in rates of bloodstream in-
fections due to Candida species in sev-
en surgical intensive care units and six
neonatal intensive care units. Clin In-
fect Dis 29: 253±258
S 48
101. Phillips P, Shafran S, Garber G, et al
(1997) Multicenter randomized trial
of fluconazole versus amphotericin B
for treatment of candidemia in non-
neutropenic patients. Canadian Candi-
demia Study Group. Eur J Clin Micro-
biol Infect Dis 16: 337±345
102. Anaissie EJ, Vartivarian SE, Abi-Said 104. Graninger W, Presteril E, Schneeweiss
D, et al (1996) Fluconazole versus am- B, Teleky B, Georgopoulos A (1993)
photericin B in the treatment of he- Treatment of Candida albicans funga-
matogenous candidiasis: a matched co- emia with fluconazole. J Infect 26:
hort study. Am J Med 101: 170±176 133±146
103. Driessen M, Ellis JB, Cooper PA, et al
(1996) Fluconazole vs. amphotericin
B for the treatment of neonatal fungal
septicemia: a prospective randomized
trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 15:
1107±1112