Ceftriaxone versus cefepime or carbapenems for definitive treatment of low-risk AmpC-Harboring Enterobacterales bloodstream infections in hospitalized adults: A retrospective cohort study
Jessica L. Mulbah , Rachel M. Kenney , Robert J. Tibbetts , Anita B. Shallal , Michael P. Veve
{"title":"Ceftriaxone versus cefepime or carbapenems for definitive treatment of low-risk AmpC-Harboring Enterobacterales bloodstream infections in hospitalized adults: A retrospective cohort study","authors":"Jessica L. Mulbah , Rachel M. Kenney , Robert J. Tibbetts , Anita B. Shallal , Michael P. Veve","doi":"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare outcomes of ceftriaxone to AmpC-stable therapies in patients with bacteremia caused by low-risk AmpC harboring Enterobacterales.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>IRB-approved, retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with <em>Serratia marcescens, Morganella morganii</em>, or <em>Providencia</em> spp. bacteremia from 1/1/2017-2/28/2024. Patients were compared by definitive therapy with ceftriaxone vs AmpC-stable therapy (cefepime, carbapenem). The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were clinical failure and development of ceftriaxone resistance.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>163 patients were included; 33.1 % received ceftriaxone, 66.9 % AmpC-stable therapies. 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.3 % ceftriaxone vs 10.1 % AmpC stable patients (<em>P</em> = 0.87); ceftriaxone definitive therapy was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (adjOR, 0.79; 95 %CI, 0.23-2.3). There were no differences in clinical failure (9.3 % vs 21.1 %, <em>P</em> = 0.059) or relapsing infection (5.6 % vs 9.3 %, <em>P</em> = 0.55) between ceftriaxone and AmpC-stable treated patients.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Patients treated with definitive ceftriaxone for low-risk AmpC Enterobacterales bacteremia had similar outcomes to AmpC stable therapies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11329,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","volume":"111 1","pages":"Article 116557"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324003821","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To compare outcomes of ceftriaxone to AmpC-stable therapies in patients with bacteremia caused by low-risk AmpC harboring Enterobacterales.
Methods
IRB-approved, retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with Serratia marcescens, Morganella morganii, or Providencia spp. bacteremia from 1/1/2017-2/28/2024. Patients were compared by definitive therapy with ceftriaxone vs AmpC-stable therapy (cefepime, carbapenem). The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were clinical failure and development of ceftriaxone resistance.
Results
163 patients were included; 33.1 % received ceftriaxone, 66.9 % AmpC-stable therapies. 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.3 % ceftriaxone vs 10.1 % AmpC stable patients (P = 0.87); ceftriaxone definitive therapy was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (adjOR, 0.79; 95 %CI, 0.23-2.3). There were no differences in clinical failure (9.3 % vs 21.1 %, P = 0.059) or relapsing infection (5.6 % vs 9.3 %, P = 0.55) between ceftriaxone and AmpC-stable treated patients.
Conclusions
Patients treated with definitive ceftriaxone for low-risk AmpC Enterobacterales bacteremia had similar outcomes to AmpC stable therapies.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease keeps you informed of the latest developments in clinical microbiology and the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. Packed with rigorously peer-reviewed articles and studies in bacteriology, immunology, immunoserology, infectious diseases, mycology, parasitology, and virology, the journal examines new procedures, unusual cases, controversial issues, and important new literature. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease distinguished independent editorial board, consisting of experts from many medical specialties, ensures you extensive and authoritative coverage.