Abstract
The prevention and treatment of sepsis in the immunocompromised host present a challenging array of diagnostic and management issues. The neutropenic patient has a primary defect in innate immune responses and is susceptible to conventional and opportunistic pathogens. The solid organ transplant patient has a primary defect in adaptive immunity and is susceptible to a myriad of pathogens that require an effective cellular immune response. Risk for infections in organ transplant recipients is further complicated by mechanical, vascular, and rejection of the transplanted organ itself. The immune suppressed state can modify the cardinal signs of inflammation, making accurate and rapid diagnosis of infection and sepsis difficult. Empiric antimicrobial agents can be lifesaving in these patients, but managing therapy in an era of progressive antibiotic resistance has become a real issue. This review discusses the challenges faced when treating severe infections in these high-risk patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The severely immunocompromised patient is at increased risk of infection by common pathogens, as well as opportunistic infections by less virulent microorganisms of little concern to immunocompetent hosts. This omnipresent risk of infection predisposes to increased risk of developing systemic compromise, including sepsis and septic shock [1, 2]. Sepsis in the adult patient with underlying acquired, immune suppression will be the focus of this review. The most common cause of severe, prolonged, immune compromise is cytoablative chemotherapy as a treatment for some forms of neoplastic disease (e.g., induction chemotherapy for acute leukemia and lymphoreticular malignancies), delayed bone marrow recovery following allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and solid organ transplantation. Less intensive chemotherapeutic regimens with low incidence of neutropenia and short duration of bone marrow depression, such as those regimens used for many solid organ malignancies pose little risk of systemic infection or sepsis. These patients are often managed as outpatients and have an excellent short-term prognosis [3, 4]. Paradoxically, despite the excess incidence of infections in the severely immunocompromised patients, the prognosis for those patients who do develop sepsis appears to be no worse or perhaps even better than their non-immunocompromised counterparts [2–5, 6•]. The reason(s) for these unexpected findings will be discussed along with some proposed new strategies that might further reduce mortality from sepsis in patients with immunosuppression.
Sepsis in the Severely Neutropenic Host
The approach to the febrile neutropenic patient with possible sepsis has become rather standard, and published guidelines are widely available by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and similar academic societies worldwide [3, 7•, 8]. These evidence-based guidelines are helpful and well validated, since the management of this group of patients has been particularly well studied in a number of high-quality, systematic, multicenter trials conducted initially by the European Organization of Research in the Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) [9]. More recently, a large number of cooperative oncology study groups throughout the world have published data on the management of sepsis and neutropenia [3, 10, 11]. The widespread acceptance and institution of these guidelines in at-risk patients has markedly reduced the incidence rate and mortality from infectious complications in neutropenic patients. Regrettably, the emergence of multiple antibiotic drug resistant (MDR) pathogens, particularly among gram-negative bacillary organisms, threatens to reverse the gains made in managing patients with prolonged neutropenia [11, 12•]. An up-to-date, evidence-based, set of clinical guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock is also available in the form of the “surviving sepsis” campaign guidelines [13].
Some definitions and general principles for the management of the neutropenic patient at risk for sepsis include the following (see reference 1 and 12 for detailed review):
-
1.
While neutropenia is technically defined as <1500 neutrophils/mm3, infection risk is considerably increased at <500 neutrophils/mm3 and is the accepted cutoff value in most studies of the febrile neutropenia.
-
2.
In immunocompromised patients, fever is defined as an oral or tympanic body temperature of >38 °C (>100.4 °F) that persists for greater than 1 h without an obvious cause (e.g., febrile transfusion reaction, drug fever, etc.) [3].
-
3.
Prolonged neutropenia is defined as ≥7 days and delineates the patient group at greatest risk for infection and sepsis [14].
-
4.
Neutropenic patients often lack the cardinal signs of inflammation making an early diagnosis of infection and sepsis a major challenge [15].
-
5.
Despite the myriad of possible causes and explanations for fever in neutropenic patients, unexplained fever is infection until proven otherwise and antibiotic treatment should be instituted urgently (within 1 h of fever onset if possible) [16].
A general approach to initial decisions regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy should be based upon the following therapeutic principles:
-
1.
Appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy should be guided by the local susceptibility patterns of pathogens within the health care setting, recent exposure history of the patient to antibiotics, and recent surveillance culture data, if available [3, 16].
-
2.
The primary empiric therapy should target aerobic gram-negative bacilli and consists of monotherapy with broad-spectrum, bactericidal antibiotics such as anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams (cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam) or carbapenems [3, 17–19], unless clinical circumstances dictate the need for combination antimicrobial therapy (high likelihood of MDR pathogens or presenting in septic shock, in which case combination therapy with addition of fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside, or colistin might be useful [3, 13].
-
3.
Use dosing strategies to maximize pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles in order to optimize antimicrobial activity [16].
-
4.
If using a cephalosporin for anti-pseudomonal coverage, add coverage of anaerobic bacteria in patients with evidence of intra-abdominal, necrotizing infections, or culture evidence of anaerobic infection [3].
-
5.
Biomarkers for systemic fungal infections including mannan, beta-D-glucan can be useful in the early detection of invasive candidiasis, and galactomannan assays may be helpful for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis, particularly in patients with prolonged neutropenia [3, 13, 16].
-
6.
The initial antibiotic regimen need not cover for possible multidrug resistant gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci as large clinical reviews and meta-analyses in neutropenic patients have not found this approach has significantly improved outcome [20, 21•]. However, their use is warranted if gram-positive infections are known to be present before starting antibiotics or are strongly suspected, such as intravenous catheter infections, cutaneous infections or evidence of streptococcal or staphylococcal toxic shock is present [3].
-
7.
Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and other bone marrow growth factors have not convincingly improved overall survival in sepsis associated with febrile neutropenia but can shorten the degree and duration of neutropenia [3]. The potential role of G-CSF as an inducer or contributor to the myeloid reconstitution syndrome (exacerbation or progression of the inflammatory process to a localized infection upon neutrophil recovery) in neutropenic patients is unclear [22].
Careful monitoring and early intervention with appropriate antimicrobials in these vulnerable patients has substantially improved the survival rates in febrile neutropenic patients. A recent study of over 41,000 patients from the United States found that the in-patient mortality associated with febrile neutropenia is now as low as 9.5 % [23]. Even febrile neutropenic patients who develop septic shock have improved survival rates despite the need for critical care [2, 5, 10]. The reduced circulating neutrophil pool in febrile neutropenia may actually be protective from the generalized endothelial injury characteristically seen in septic shock. Diffuse myeloid cell-endothelial cell adherence and neutrophil-induced proteolytic and oxidant injury are central to the pathophysiology of loss of endothelial barrier function in sepsis [24, 25•]. Neutropenia might limit the endothelial membrane injury in the granulocytopenic patient with severe sepsis/septic shock. Recent advances in early diagnosis of systemic microbial infections using non-culture-based genomic or proteomic systems promise to further improve the outlook for neutropenic patients by allowing specific, directed, antimicrobial therapy to be given early and accurately [26]. A suggested antimicrobial regimen for the initial management of the febrile neutropenic patient is provided in Table 1 [3, 13, 27–29].
Definition of Sepsis and Septic Shock in the Neutropenic Patient
Sepsis was initially defined simply as an infection complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) consisting of fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnea, and leukocytosis (or sudden leukopenia) [30]. The term severe sepsis was used to connote a clinical condition of infection + SIRS + evidence of sepsis-induced organ dysfunction. The problem with this set of definitions was that SIRS + infection is a very broad and non-specific set of clinical criteria encompassing essentially any patient with a localized, uncomplicated infection accompanied by fever and leukocytosis. The term “sepsis” lacked the immediate clinical impact that the term should convey to the clinician. Sepsis implies a life-threatening, deleterious host response to systemic infection. Calling every infection accompanied by an appropriate host response sepsis makes little sense, confuses the terminology, and greatly overestimates the incidence of sepsis in general medical care [31].
A new proposed definition of sepsis has been developed to clarify the situation and re-acquire the intended meaning of the clinical condition known as sepsis. Sepsis occurs when there is evidence of organ hypoperfusion or dysfunction as a result of a systemic infection. In sepsis, there is a disintegration of cellular communication and function where endothelial and epithelial barrier dysfunction leads to a potentially lethal from of distributive shock with resultant multi-organ dysfunction [32•]. The term “severe sepsis” should be abandoned and replaced by sepsis, as all sepsis is clinically severe. Infection accompanied by an appropriate systemic host response is the definition of infection. The absence of host response to the presence of a microorganism indicates colonization. The term septic shock remains a clinical-pathophysiologic state in which the host response to infection is manifested by acute onset hypotension (operationally defined as a systolic BP < 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg) that does not recover with an adequate fluid challenge (>20 ml/kg over 1 hour). This process is often accompanied by multi-organ dysfunction and lactic acidemia (>2 mmol/L) [31, 32•, 33••, 34•, 35•].
The current management of sepsis and septic shock in the immunocompromised patient is very similar to non-immunocompromised hosts and is described in detail in the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines published in 2013 [13]. The basic elements of management include early and aggressive resuscitation to restore circulating blood volume, use of vasopressors as necessary to restore and maintain blood pressure, and early and appropriate use of broad-spectrum, bactericidal antibiotic therapy. Expert supportive care in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting is warranted for monitoring and organ support as needed (e.g., ventilator for acute lung injury, vasopressors for septic shock, hemodialysis for acute kidney injury, blood product support, etc.). A critical element in sepsis therapy is early recognition and initiation of an effective antimicrobial agent as soon as possible. Experimental and clinical evidence indicates that early antibiotics can limit the expansion of the total bacterial load within the host tissues and, therefore, improves chances for patient survival [13, 32•, 36].
In this era of progressive antibiotic resistance development, particularly in gram-negative bacterial pathogens, it critical to choose an initial regimen in patients presenting in septic shock that will cover all possible pathogens. For this reason, combinations of extended spectrum beta-lactams and either a fluoroquinolone or an aminoglycoside is recommended [13]. In regions of the world where MDR pathogens are commonplace and express extended spectrum beta-lactamases and carbapenemases, empiric use of colistin, tigecycline, or fosfomycin can be indicated [11, 12•]. The treatment can be simplified (“de-escalated”) to a single active agent once antibiotic susceptibilities are available. One important difference in the supportive care of immunocompromised patients is that experimental therapies that are anti-inflammatory in activity (e.g., high-dose steroids or anti-cytokine therapy) should not be tried in such patients. In fact, immunostimulatory adjuvants might prove to be particularly effective in septic, immunosuppressed patients. Some of these agents include T and B cell growth factors such as interleukin 7, inhibitory antibodies to co-inhibitory signals on antigen presenting cells, or immunostimulatory oligo-deoxynucleotides [37, 38•]. Experimental evidence suggests that these immunostimulators might be effective, but this has yet to be convincingly demonstrated clinically.
Sepsis in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Over 30,000 solid organ transplantations are performed every year in the United States, and sepsis remains among the main causes of death among all types of allograft recipients [39]. Nosocomial infections are 18 times more frequent in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients than in non-transplant patients, which put this patient population at a definite higher risk for developing severe sepsis [6•]. In addition, SOT recipients are 3 times more frequently admitted to hospitals from emergency departments when compared to non-transplant patients [40]. As a general rule, sepsis occurs in 20–60 % of all SOT recipients and is associated with a hospital mortality ranging from 5–40 % [41–46]. Secondly, SOT patients with sepsis do not present with the same classical clinical features seen in non-transplant patients; more specifically, SOT patients tend to have sepsis without leukocytosis and fever, but with more thrombocytopenia and organ failure [6•]. Thirdly, most sepsis episodes affecting SOT recipients are caused by hospital-acquired bacterial infections [6•] and consequently associated with more microbial resistance [44]. In fact, SOT is an independent risk factor for the development of bacteremia due to “ESKAPE” infections (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) [44]. Fourthly, Candida spp. is the most common cause of fungemic sepsis in all SOT recipients [47, 48]. And lastly, opportunistic viral infections, in particular cytomegalovirus (CMV), further predispose SOT patients to sepsis [49].
Due to the paucity of specific studies on sepsis and SOT patients, we elected to perform a more inclusive approach by reviewing articles that reported sepsis, severe sepsis, severe bacterial and fungal infections, and bacteremia in transplant recipients. The risk factors for and management of sepsis are highly dependent on the type of allograft; hence, this section of the manuscript will be divided according to the most common types of transplantation: kidney, liver, heart, and lungs.
Kidney Allograft Recipients
Risk Factors
Risk factors for developing severe infections early after kidney transplantation include anastomotic leaks, contamination of the perfusate or allograft, presence of urinary catheters, ureteral stents, central venous catheters, recent diagnosis of wound infection, and advanced age at the time of transplantation [39]. For infections in the first 6–12 months post-transplant, several risk factors have been observed: vesico-ureteral reflux, female gender, long periods of dialysis before transplantation, diabetes mellitus, polycystic kidney disease, increased aluminum excretion, recurrent UTIs before transplantation, and receipt of deceased donor kidneys [50, 51].
Clinical Presentation
The most common site of infection and source of sepsis in these patients is the urinary tract [52]. Early bacterial infections are related to hematomas, lymphoceles, and anastomotic leaks. These infections may present as UTIs, pyelonephritis, bacteremia, and severe sepsis. The prolonged use venous and urinary catheters, as well as ureteral stents are associated with higher rate of bacterial colonization and nosocomial infections. As an example, the presence of indwelling urinary catheters in kidney recipients raises the incidence of bacteremia to 5–10 % per day [53]. Abdominal ultrasounds should be routinely performed in all kidney recipients with sepsis of urinary source to rule out pyelonephritis, perinephric abscess, fungal balls, and ureteral obstruction; however, other image studies may be necessary in case of high clinical suspicion with a negative ultrasound. If these UTIs become recurrent after renal transplantation, then predisposing factors such as ureteral reflux, uretero-vesicle junction strictures, and neurogenic bladder should be carefully evaluated in order to reduce the recurrence of infections. While sepsis from respiratory source appears to be similar to that from the general population, kidney recipients are more prone to sepsis from abdominal sources such as pericolic abscess and bowel perforation, especially in elderly patients and those with a history of polycystic disease [54–56]. Also, gallbladder stones and pancreatitis are more common in kidney recipients due to the common previous history of hyperparathyroidism and hyperlipidemia associated with chronic renal disease.
Allograft Specific Management
An aggressive evaluation for anatomical complications and foreign bodies as the potential cause of an infection is essential for adequate source control in septic patients. While the general antibiotic management of these patients is similar to non-transplant patients, the duration may vary depending on the extent of infection, source control, and severity of illness. A study that included over 33,000 renal transplantations showed that recipients who required hospitalization due to septicemia had a long-term survival of 9 years (95% CI 7.4–10.6), compared to 15.7 years (95% CI 14.8–16.7) for all other recipients [57].
Liver Allograft Recipients
Risk Factors
Biliary and enteric contamination, poor baseline medical condition, prolonged length of liver transplantation procedure, and extended ICU stay in the post-operative period are all associated with higher risk of infection and sepsis [58, 59]. In addition, pre-transplant conditions such as primary sclerosing cholangitis predispose liver recipients to higher rates of post-operative biliary complications and anastomotic strictures, which increase the risk of sepsis secondary to bacterial cholangitis [60]. Also, the higher the pre-transplant level of bilirubin, the higher the risk of post-op infections [59]. Duct-to-duct biliary anastomosis for biliary drainage is associated with lower rate of infections than roux-en Y choledochojejunostomy [58, 61].
Clinical Presentation
The most common site of infection and source of sepsis in liver recipients is intra-abdominal, and up to 30 % of liver recipients develop bacteremia and sepsis in the first 3 months after transplant [62–64]. Common clinical presentations include intra- or extra-hepatic abscess, secondary peritonitis, cholangitis, which may not present with the classic Charcot’s triad and surgical wound infection. In particular, cholangitis may be associated to underlying biliary strictures and intrahepatic abscesses. Procedures such as retrograde cholangiopancreatography and t-tube cholangiography manipulation may lead to ascending cholangitis. The lack of typical cholangitis signs may be confused with graft rejection, so blood cultures and imaging studies can further aid with the differential diagnosis. The differential diagnosis of cholangitis not only includes rejection but also liver ischemia, venous outflow obstruction, and preservation injury [65]. The early post-operative occurrence of peritonitis may suggest the presence of bile leak, and the recurrence of hepatic abscess may indicate the presence of hepatic artery thrombosis, which can lead to graft loss. Imaging studies, such as ultrasounds and CT scans, should be performed to provide additional clinical information to differentiate between infectious processes, as well as to optimize infection source control. Another potential source of sepsis is C. difficile colitis, which is a common infection due to the high use of peri- and post-transplant antibiotics [66•, 67]. Pneumonia is the second most common source of sepsis in liver recipients, which is most common in the first month post-transplantation [59].
Allograft Specific Management
Source control is a crucial part of the treatment of sepsis in liver recipients because of the common association with biliary and vascular anatomical changes. A classic case in point is the diagnosis of hepatic abscess in the presence of hepatic artery thrombosis; this is a complex situation to treat because the poor perfusion precludes of attainment of optimal tissue antibiotic levels, and the common presentation with multiple abscesses precludes adequate drainage. Hence, prolonged therapies and multiple drainages may be necessary, and if these do not work, retransplantation may be the only alternative to eradicate both infection and thrombosis.
Heart Allograft Recipients
Risk Factors
Risk factors associated with sepsis in heart recipients include pre-transplant hospitalization, post-op tracheal intubation for more than 1 day, high-dose steroids, allograft rejection, CMV infection, and post-transplant reintubation [68]. In the first 30–60 days, the infection sources are mostly nosocomial, while the ones occurring from 3–9 months tend to be caused by opportunistic pathogens [69]. A particular fact associated with heart transplantation is related to the common need for multiple devices and foreign bodies before transplantation such as ventricular-assist devices, intra-balloon pumps, pacemakers, automatic implanted cardioverter defibrillators, all of which are known to be associated with chronic and difficult to treat infections. If these devices are infected in the immediate pre-transplant period, the risk of post-transplant mediastinitis and aortic suture infection and dehiscence is elevated [70]. Other infections that may present as sepsis in heart recipients include histoplasmosis, tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis, strongyloidiasis, and Chagas disease; hence, a detailed geographic residence and travel history is crucial in order to diagnose these infections.
Clinical Presentation
The lungs are the most common source of sepsis in heart recipients, and nosocomial organisms are predominant in the first 2 months post-transplantation. After primary allograft dysfunction, bacterial sepsis is the main cause of death in heart recipients [71]. Most bacteremias and fungemias are nosocomial and associated with mortality up to 30 % [72]. Sternal wound infection and mediastinitis are less frequent but associated with higher morbidity and mortality [72].
Allograft Specific Management
Antibiotics are the mainstream approach to treat sepsis in heart recipients but source control such as sternal wound debridement and drainage of mediastinitis cannot be underscored. Both yeasts and molds are not uncommon causes of sepsis in heart recipients and can have a clinical presentation similar to bacterial sepsis, so fungal infections need to be in the differential diagnosis of sepsis after heart transplantation.
Lung Allograft Recipients
Risk Factors
The denervation of the allograft is associated with impaired mucociliary clearance and reduced cough reflex, while the absence of lymphatic drainage precludes the immune system from quickly reaching the new graft and anastomotic site; all these anatomical changes increase the predisposition for severe infections and sepsis in the post-lung transplantation period. The functional status and previous infectious exposures of the recipient native lungs may have significant consequences in the post-transplantation period. Several risk factors for post-op sepsis have been identified in this patient population including renal failure, morbid obesity, advanced age, malnutrition, diverticular disease, and native lungs of single-lung allograft recipients [73–78]. The presence of bronchiolitis obliterans is associated with an increased risk of pneumonias and decreased long-term survival [74].
Clinical Presentation
Lungs, pleura, and the thoracic cavity are the most common sites of infection leading to sepsis in lung recipients. Because of the direct contact of the allograft with a multitude of different airborne microorganism, these recipients are prone to infections different from other allografts; these include nocardiosis, tuberculosis, histoplasmosis (See Fig. 1), blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, cryptococcosis, aspergillosis, and numerous respiratory viruses that can mimic bacterial pneumonia and sepsis. In particular, Aspergillus spp. can cause colonization, tracheobronchitis, sinusitis, and pneumonia. Bacteria are the most common cause of pneumonia and sepsis, but fungal pneumonias are more common in the first 2–3 months post-transplant. Similar to heart recipients, mediastinitis also occurs in lung recipients and can lead to substantial morbidity and mortality mainly in the first month post-transplant [75].
Allograft Specific Management
The diagnosis of a specific respiratory microorganism potentially causing sepsis is crucial for the success of antibiotic therapy in lung transplant recipients. High-quality sputum specimens, mini-bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens, and BALs can all aid in the identification of these infections. In addition, the visual inspection of the bronchial tree may be helpful in the diagnosis of certain infections; for example, the presence of bronchial pseudomembranes involving anastomotic sites may suggest aspergillosis, while invasive anastomotic infections may suggest candidiasis. Debridement in conjunction with intravenous and inhaled antibiotics and antifungals are all possible ways to treat these infections [76, 77]. Most of the sepsis-related early mortality in lung transplant patients is caused by bacteria, but the mid-late sepsis-related mortality is more commonly associated to mold infections.
Universal Risk Factors
Notably, there are risk factors for post-transplantation sepsis that are common to all types of solid organ transplants: (1) CMV serology mismatch, particularly positive donor to negative recipient; (2) the development of CMV disease which itself leads to further immunosuppression and predisposes recipients to higher rates of bacterial and fungal sepsis; (3) prolonged duration of graft cold ischemia; (4) prolonged duration of surgical transplantation procedure; and (5) requirement of large amounts of blood transfusion [39].
Universal Management
Principles of therapeutic management for sepsis that apply to all allograft types include: (1) rapid initiation of intravenous antibiotics with the use of the most optimal dose and administration interval; (2) rapid diagnosis (PCR, antigens, serology, Gram stain, cultures, imaging studies, biopsies); (3) source control: image-guided needle drainage, open surgical drainage, debridement, surgical removal of ischemic or necrotic tissue, removal of infected foreign bodies, such as intravenous and urinary catheters, biliary and ureteral stents, pacemakers and AICD; (4) aggressive search for pathologies that mimic severe sepsis and lead to significant morbidity and mortality if missed (see Table 2); (5) reduction of immunosuppressive drugs to levels that allow better immunological response to fight the infection process, while still preventing graft rejection.
Conclusion
The prevention and treatment of sepsis in the immunocompromised host presents a challenging array of diagnostic and management issues. The neutropenic patient has a primary defect in innate immune responses and is susceptible to conventional and opportunistic pathogens. The solid organ transplant patient has a primary defect in adaptive immunity and is susceptible to a myriad of pathogens that require an effective cellular immune response. Risk for infections in organ transplant recipients is further complicated by mechanical, vascular, and rejection of the transplanted organ itself. The immune suppressed state can modify the cardinal signs of inflammation. Timely diagnostic evaluation and empiric antimicrobial agents can be lifesaving in these patients.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. 2013; 369: 840-852.
Legrand M, Max A, Peigne V, et al. Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(1):43–9.
Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. 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(4):e56–93.
Kern WV. Risk assessment and treatment of low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(2):533–40.
Jeddi R, Achour M, Amor RB, et al. Factors associated with severe sepsis: prospective study of 94 neutropenic febrile episodes. Hematology. 2010;15(1):23–32.
Kalil AC, Syed A, Rupp ME, et al. Is bacteremic sepsis associated with higher mortality in transplant recipients than in nontransplant patients? A matched case-control propensity-adjusted study. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(2):216–22. This study compared patients who had a solid organ transplant and sepsis to patients who did not have organ transplant but had sepsis. They were matched by age, gender, and hospital unit location at the time of blood culture collection. The results showed a statistically significant higher survival rates for septic patients who had organ transplantation than that those without transplantation, after accounting for disease severity and co-morbidities.
Penack O, Becker C, Buchheidt M, et al. Management of sepsis in neutropenic patients: 2014 updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases working party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology. Ann Hematol. 2014;93(7):1083–95. This evidence-based review is the most recent national set of guidelines established as a set of recommendations to manage the febrile neutropenic patient. The guideline favors early antibiotic therapy directed towards the most likely pathogens with appropriate therapy guided by local susceptibilty patterns of common bacterial pathogens.
Masaoka T. Evidence-based recommendations for antimicrobial use in febrile neutropenia in Japan. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39 Suppl 1:S49.
Viscoli C on behalf of the EORTC international antimicrobial therapy group. Management of infection in cancer patients. Euro J Cancer. 2002;38 suppl 4:82–7.
Legrand M, Max A, Schlemmer B, Azoulay E, Gachot B. The strategy of antibiotic use in critically ill neutropenic cancer patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2011;1:1–22.
Hanberger H, Giske CG, Giamarello H. When and how to cover for resistant gram-negative bacilli in severe sepsis and septic shock. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2011;31(5):416–25.
Pop-Vicas A, Opal SM. The clinical impact of multidrug resistant gram-negative bacilli in the management of septic shock. Virulence. 2014;5(1):1–7. This review paper discusses the problem of multidrug resistant bacterial pathogens and provides some recommendations on how to treat these infections in criticall ill patients.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. The surviving sepsis guidelines: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:580–637.
Klastersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, et al. The multinational association of supportive care in cancer risk index: a multinational scoring system for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3038–51.
Sickles EA, Greene WH, Wiernik PH. Clinical presentation of infection in granulocytopenic patients. Arch Intern Med. 1975;135:715–9.
Sepkowitz KA. Treatment of patients with hematologic neoplasm, fever, neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40 suppl 4:S253–256.
Rolston KV. Challenges in the treatment of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria in patients with cancer and neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40 suppl 4:S246–252.
Pizzo PA, Hathorn JW, Hiemenz J, et al. A randomized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:552–8.
Paul M, Soares-Weiser K, Grozinsky S, Leibovici L. Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003038.
Vardakas KZ, Samonis G, Chrysanthopoulou SA, et al. Role of glycopeptides as part of initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005;5(7):431–9.
Paul M, Dickstein Y, Borok S, et al. Empirical antibiotics targeting gram-positive bacteria for the treatment of febrile neutropenic with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD003914. This systematic review finds that the addition of empiric antibiotics that target gram-positive bacterial pathogens does not result in improved survival rates in febrile neutropenic patients when compared to antibacterial regimens that initiate coverage of these pathogens only after their presence are documented by bacterial cultures.
Bow EJ. Neutropenic fever syndromes in patients undergoing cytotoxic therapy for acute leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Semin Hematol. 2009;46:259–68.
Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, et al. Mortality, morbidity and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106:2258–226.
Bosmann M, Ward PA. The inflammatory response in sepsis. Trends Immunol. 2013;34:129–36.
Opal SM, van der Poll T. Endothelial barrier dysfunction in septic shock. J Intern Med. 2014. doi:10.1111./joim.12331. This basic review details the nature of the endothelial barrier in the microcirculation and the factors that disupt the barrier function in septic shock. New molecular targets have been recently identified that might offer new treatment options for immunocompromised patients with septic shock.
Skvarc M, Stubjar D, Rogina P, Kaasch AJ. Non-culture-based methods to diagnose bloodstream infections: does it work? Eur J Microbiol Immunol. 2013;3(2):97–104.
Yahav D, Paul M, Fraser A, et al. Efficacy and safety of cefepime: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:338–48.
Kim PM, Wu YT, Cooper C, et al. Meta-analysis of a possible signal of increased mortality associated with cefepime use. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:381–9.
Kalil AC. Is cefepime safe for clinical use? A Bayesian viewpoint. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:1207–9.
Carlet J, Cohen J, Calandra T, Opal SM, Masur H. Sepsis, time to reconsider the concept. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):964–7.
Vincent J-L, Opal SM, Marshall JC, Tracey KJ. Sepsis definitions: time for change. Lancet. 2013;381:774–5.
Opal SM, Dellinger RP, Vincent J-L, Masur H, Angus DC. The next generation of sepsis clinical trial designs: what is next after the demise of recombinant human activated protein C? Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1714–21. This clinical review discusses the difficulties encountered in the study of new anti-sepsis drugs in clinical trials and offers some suggestions on how to improve future clinical trials.
Deutchman CS, Tracey KJ. Sepsis: current dogma and new perspectives. Immunity. 2014;40:463–75. This is an excellent review of the current understanding of the molecular mechanisms that result in septic shock and offers some new ways to address the problem from a mechanistic perspective.
Gomez H, Ince C, DeBacker D, Pickkers P, Payen D, Hotchkiss J, et al. A unified theory of sepsis-induced acute kidney injury: inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, bioenergetics, and the tubular cell adaptation to injury. Shock. 2014;41(1):3–11. This basic review argues that the problem of sepsis at the cellular level is that cells functionallly loose their ability to maintain their specialized functions in tissues and retreat into a de-differentiated state for individual cell survival.
Mehta D, Ravindran K, Kuebler W. Novel regulators of endothelial barrier function. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2014;307:L924–35. This paper reviews the structure and function of intercellular gap junctions between endothelial cells in health and disease.
Kumar A, Paladugu B, Haery C, et al. Timing of antibiotic administration in relation to duration of shock is a critical determinant of survival in a murine model of E. coli sepsis: association with serum lactate and inflammatory cytokines. J Infect Dis. 2006;193:251–8.
Hotchkiss RS, Opal SM. Immunotherapy for sepsis: a new approach against an ancient foe. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):87–9.
Chahin A, Opal S, Zorzopulos J, et al. The novel immunotherapeutic oligodeoxynucleotide IMT504 protects neutropenic animals from fatal Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia and sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(2):1225–9. This experimental study demonstrates that specific short sequences of oligonucleotides can function as immunostimulants and improve the prognosis of experimental animals with febrile neutropenic systemic infections. Whether this strategy will work in neutropenic sepsis remains to be tested in clinical trials.
Kalil AC, Dakroub H, Freifeld AG. Sepsis and solid organ transplantation. Curr Drug Targets. 2007;8(4):533–41.
Trzeciak S, Sharer R, Piper D, et al. Infections and severe sepsis in solid-organ transplant patients admitted from a university-based ED. The Am J Emergency Med. 2004;22(7):530–3.
Hsu RB, Chang CI, Fang CT, Chang SC, Wang SS, Chu SH. Bloodstream infection in heart transplant recipients: 12-year experience at a university hospital in Taiwan. Euro J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2011;40(6):1362–7.
Candel FJ, Grima E, Matesanz M, et al. Bacteremia and septic shock after solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation Proc. 2005;37(9):4097–9.
Wan Q, Ye Q, Zhou J. Mortality predictors of bloodstream infections in solid-organ transplant recipients. Exp Clin Trans. 2013;11(3):211–4.
Bodro M, Sabe N, Tubau F, et al. Risk factors and outcomes of bacteremia caused by drug-resistant ESKAPE pathogens in solid-organ transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2013;96(9):843–9. This study analyzed a cohort of solid organ transplant patients who developed bacteremia with ESKAPE organisms and concluded that the following factors were independently associated with ESKAPE infection: prior transplantation, septic shock, and prior antibiotic therapy.
Linares L, Garcia-Goez JF, Cervera C, Almela M, Sanclemente G, Cofan F, et al. Early bacteremia after solid organ transplantation. Trans Proc. 2009;41(6):2262–4.
Malinis MF, Mawhorter SD, Jain A, Shrestha NK, Avery RK, van Duin D. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in solid organ transplant recipients: evidence for improved survival when compared with nontransplant patients. Transplantation. 2012;93(10):1045–50.
Shoham S, Marr KA. Invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Future Microbiol. 2012;7(5):639–55.
van Hal SJ, Marriott DJ, Chen SC, Nguyen Q, Sorrell TC, Ellis DH, et al. Candidemia following solid organ transplantation in the era of antifungal prophylaxis: the Australian experience. Trans Infect Dis. 2009;11(2):122–7.
Kalil AC, Levitsky J, Lyden E, Stoner J, Freifeld AG. Meta-analysis: the efficacy of strategies to prevent organ disease by cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(12):870–80.
Chuang P, Parikh CR, Langone A. Urinary tract infections after renal transplantation: a retrospective review at two US transplant centers. Clin Trans. 2005;19(2):230–5.
Schmaldienst S, Dittrich E, Horl WH. Urinary tract infections after renal transplantation. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12(2):125–30.
Wagener MM, Yu VL. Bacteremia in transplant recipients: a prospective study of demographics, etiologic agents, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(5):239–47.
Warren JW, Platt R, Thomas RJ, Rosner B, Kass EH. Antibiotic irrigation and catheter-associated urinary-tract infections. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(11):570–3.
Koneru B, Selby R, O’Hair DP, Tzakis AG, Hakala TR, Starzl TE. Nonobstructing colonic dilatation and colon perforations following renal transplantation. Arch Surg. 1990;125(5):610–3.
Andreoni KA, Pelletier RP, Elkhammas EA, et al. Increased incidence of gastrointestinal surgical complications in renal transplant recipients with polycystic kidney disease. Transplantation. 1999;67(2):262–6.
Dominguez Fernandez E, Albrecht KH, et al. Prevalence of diverticulosis and incidence of bowel perforation after kidney transplantation in patients with polycystic kidney disease. Transpl Int. 1998;11(1):28–31.
Abbott KC, Oliver 3rd JD, Hypolite I, et al. Hospitalizations for bacterial septicemia after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Nephrol. 2001;21(2):120–7.
Kusne S, Dummer JS, Singh N, et al. Infections after liver transplantation. An analysis of 101 consecutive cases. Medicine. 1988;67(2):132–43.
George DL, Arnow PM, Fox AS, et al. Bacterial infection as a complication of liver transplantation: epidemiology and risk factors. Rev Infect Dis. 1991;13(3):387–96.
Koivusalo A, Isoniemi H, Salmela K, Hockerstedt K. Biliary complications in 100 adult liver transplantations: a retrospective clinical study. Transpl Int. 1994;7 Suppl 1:S119–20.
Collins LA, Samore MH, Roberts MS, Luzzati R, Jenkins RL, Lewis WD, et al. Risk factors for invasive fungal infections complicating orthotopic liver transplantation. J Infect Dis. 1994;170(3):644–52.
Paya CV, Hermans PE, Washington 2nd JA, et al. Incidence, distribution, and outcome of episodes of infection in 100 orthotopic liver transplantations. Mayo Clinic Proc. 1989;64(5):555–64.
Patel R, Paya CV. Infections in solid-organ transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10(1):86–124.
Newell KA, Millis JM, Arnow PM, et al. Incidence and outcome of infection by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus following orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplantation. 1998;65(3):439–42.
Tachopoulou OA, Vogt DP, Henderson JM, Baker M, Keys TF. Hepatic abscess after liver transplantation: 1990-2000. Transplantation. 2003;75(1):79–83.
Hsu JL, Enser JJ, McKown T, et al. Outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection in recipients of solid abdominal organ transplants. Clin Trans. 2014;28(2):267–73. This study evaluated solid organ transplant patients who developed Clostridium difficile infection and found that the risk factors for clinical failure at 14 days were vasopressor support, previous Clostridium difficile infection, and treatment with vancomycin. Three-quarters of all transplant patients were clinically cured at 14 days.
Tsapepas DS, Martin ST, Miao J, et al. Clostridium difficile infection, a descriptive analysis of solid organ transplant recipients at a single center. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;80(4):239–344
Corensek MJ, Stewart RW, Keys TF, Mehta AC, McHenry MC, Goormastic M. A multivariate analysis of risk factors for pneumonia following cardiac transplantation. Transplantation. 1988;46(6):860–5.
Cisneros JM, Munoz P, Torre-Cisneros J, et al. Pneumonia after heart transplantation: a multi-institutional study. Spanish Transplantation Infection Study Group. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(2):324–31.
Myers TJ, Khan T, Frazier OH. Infectious complications associated with ventricular assist systems. ASAIO J. 2000;46(6):S28–36.
Montoya JG, Giraldo LF, Efron B, et al. Infectious complications among 620 consecutive heart transplant patients at Stanford University Medical Center. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(5):629–40.
Hofflin JM, Potasman I, Baldwin JC, Oyer PE, Stinson EB, Remington JS. Infectious complications in heart transplant recipients receiving cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(2):209–16.
Horvath J, Dummer S, Loyd J, Walker B, Merrill WH, Frist WH. Infection in the transplanted and native lung after single lung transplantation. Chest. 1993;104(3):681–5.
Kramer MR, Marshall SE, Starnes VA, Gamberg P, Amitai Z, Theodore J. Infectious complications in heart-lung transplantation. Analysis of 200 episodes. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(17):2010–6.
Maurer JR, Tullis DE, Grossman RF, Vellend H, Winton TL, Patterson GA. Infectious complications following isolated lung transplantation. Chest. 1992;101(4):1056–9.
Hadjiliadis D, Sporn TA, Perfect JR, Tapson VF, Davis RD, Palmer SM. Outcome of lung transplantation in patients with mycetomas. Chest. 2002;121(1):128–34.
Smith PC, Slaughter MS, Petty MG, Shumway SJ, Kshettry VR, Bolman RM, 3rd. Abdominal complications after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplantation 1995;14:44–51
Venuta F, Boehler A, Rendina EA, et al. Complications in the native lung after single lung transplantation. Euro J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 1999;16(1):54–8.
Stewart S, McNeil K, Nashef SA, Wells FC, Higenbottam TW, Wallwork J. Audit of referral and explant diagnoses in lung transplantation: a pathologic study of lungs removed for parenchymal disease. J Heart Lung Trans. 1995;14(6 Pt 1):1173–86.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
Conflict of Interest
Steven Opal reports grants from Arsanis, personal fees from BioAegis, personal fees from Battelle, personal fees from Biocardis, personal fees from Immunexpress, personal fees from Grifolds, grants from Glaxo Smith Kline, grants from Cardeas, grants from Asahi Kasei, personal fees from Elsevier publishers, other from Paratek Pharmaceuticals, other from Achaogen, other from Spectral Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. Andre Kalil reports clinical research grants from Asahi Kasei and Spectral Diagnostics.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Transplant and Oncology
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalil, A.C., Opal, S.M. Sepsis in the Severely Immunocompromised Patient. Curr Infect Dis Rep 17, 32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-015-0487-4
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-015-0487-4