在非重症监护病房患者中使用碳青霉烯类与非碳青霉烯类经验疗法治疗产扩展谱β-内酰胺酶肠杆菌感染的效果:在一家产扩展谱β-内酰胺酶肠杆菌感染率较高的医院进行的实际调查。

Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE Pub Date : 2024-06-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/ash.2024.88
Amy Y Kang, Mary Elkomos, Danny Pham, Michelle Guerrero, Deborah Kupferwasser, Loren G Miller
{"title":"在非重症监护病房患者中使用碳青霉烯类与非碳青霉烯类经验疗法治疗产扩展谱β-内酰胺酶肠杆菌感染的效果:在一家产扩展谱β-内酰胺酶肠杆菌感染率较高的医院进行的实际调查。","authors":"Amy Y Kang, Mary Elkomos, Danny Pham, Michelle Guerrero, Deborah Kupferwasser, Loren G Miller","doi":"10.1017/ash.2024.88","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate whether empiric carbapenem therapy, compared to empiric non-carbapenem therapy, was associated with improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult, non-ICU patients admitted with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections. Primary outcome was time to clinical stability from the first empiric antibiotic dose. Secondary outcomes were early clinical response and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. We used multivariate regression methods to examine time to clinical stability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 142 patients, 59 (42%) received empiric carbapenems and 83 (58%) received empiric non-carbapenems, most commonly ceftriaxone (49/83, 59%). Median age was 59 years. The most common infection source was urinary (71%). The carbapenem group had a higher proportion of patients who received antibiotics within 6 months of admission (55% vs 28%, <i>P</i> < .01) and history of ESBL (57% vs 17%, <i>P</i> < .01). There were no significant differences in hours until clinical stability between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem groups (22 (IQR: 0, 85) vs 19 (IQR: 0, 69), <i>P</i> = .54). Early clinical response (88% vs 90%, <i>P</i> = .79) and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission (17% vs 8%, <i>P</i> = .13) were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among hospitalized non-ICU patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection, we found no difference in time to clinical stability after the first empiric antibiotic dose between those receiving carbapenems and those who did not. Our data suggest that empiric carbapenem use may not be an important driver of clinical response in patients with less severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149041/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of empiric carbapenem versus non-carbapenem therapy for extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales infections in non-intensive care unit patients: a real-world investigation in a hospital with high-prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales.\",\"authors\":\"Amy Y Kang, Mary Elkomos, Danny Pham, Michelle Guerrero, Deborah Kupferwasser, Loren G Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2024.88\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate whether empiric carbapenem therapy, compared to empiric non-carbapenem therapy, was associated with improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult, non-ICU patients admitted with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections. Primary outcome was time to clinical stability from the first empiric antibiotic dose. Secondary outcomes were early clinical response and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. We used multivariate regression methods to examine time to clinical stability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 142 patients, 59 (42%) received empiric carbapenems and 83 (58%) received empiric non-carbapenems, most commonly ceftriaxone (49/83, 59%). Median age was 59 years. The most common infection source was urinary (71%). The carbapenem group had a higher proportion of patients who received antibiotics within 6 months of admission (55% vs 28%, <i>P</i> < .01) and history of ESBL (57% vs 17%, <i>P</i> < .01). There were no significant differences in hours until clinical stability between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem groups (22 (IQR: 0, 85) vs 19 (IQR: 0, 69), <i>P</i> = .54). Early clinical response (88% vs 90%, <i>P</i> = .79) and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission (17% vs 8%, <i>P</i> = .13) were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among hospitalized non-ICU patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection, we found no difference in time to clinical stability after the first empiric antibiotic dose between those receiving carbapenems and those who did not. Our data suggest that empiric carbapenem use may not be an important driver of clinical response in patients with less severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149041/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.88\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.88","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究经验性碳青霉烯类疗法与经验性非碳青霉烯类疗法相比,是否能改善非重症监护病房(ICU)住院的产扩展谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)肠杆菌感染患者的临床预后:我们对因产 ESBL 肠杆菌感染而入住非重症监护病房的成人患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。主要结果是从首次使用经验性抗生素到临床稳定的时间。次要结果是早期临床反应和 30 天全因再住院率。我们采用多变量回归方法来检验临床稳定时间:在142名患者中,59人(42%)接受了碳青霉烯类经验性治疗,83人(58%)接受了非碳青霉烯类经验性治疗,其中最常见的是头孢曲松(49/83,59%)。中位年龄为 59 岁。最常见的感染源是泌尿系统(71%)。碳青霉烯类药物组患者在入院后6个月内接受抗生素治疗的比例更高(55% vs 28%,P < .01),ESBL病史更长(57% vs 17%,P < .01)。碳青霉烯类药物组和非碳青霉烯类药物组患者的临床稳定时间无明显差异(22(IQR:0,85)vs 19(IQR:0,69),P = .54)。两组的早期临床反应(88% vs 90%,P = .79)和30天全因再入院率(17% vs 8%,P = .13)相似:结论:在非重症监护病房的ESBL产肠杆菌感染住院患者中,我们发现接受和未接受碳青霉烯类抗生素治疗的患者在首次使用经验性抗生素后达到临床稳定的时间上没有差异。我们的数据表明,对于病情较轻的产 ESBL 肠杆菌感染患者来说,经验性使用碳青霉烯类抗生素可能不是影响临床反应的重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of empiric carbapenem versus non-carbapenem therapy for extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales infections in non-intensive care unit patients: a real-world investigation in a hospital with high-prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales.

Objective: To investigate whether empiric carbapenem therapy, compared to empiric non-carbapenem therapy, was associated with improved clinical outcomes among hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales infections.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult, non-ICU patients admitted with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections. Primary outcome was time to clinical stability from the first empiric antibiotic dose. Secondary outcomes were early clinical response and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. We used multivariate regression methods to examine time to clinical stability.

Results: Of the 142 patients, 59 (42%) received empiric carbapenems and 83 (58%) received empiric non-carbapenems, most commonly ceftriaxone (49/83, 59%). Median age was 59 years. The most common infection source was urinary (71%). The carbapenem group had a higher proportion of patients who received antibiotics within 6 months of admission (55% vs 28%, P < .01) and history of ESBL (57% vs 17%, P < .01). There were no significant differences in hours until clinical stability between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem groups (22 (IQR: 0, 85) vs 19 (IQR: 0, 69), P = .54). Early clinical response (88% vs 90%, P = .79) and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission (17% vs 8%, P = .13) were similar between groups.

Conclusion: Among hospitalized non-ICU patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection, we found no difference in time to clinical stability after the first empiric antibiotic dose between those receiving carbapenems and those who did not. Our data suggest that empiric carbapenem use may not be an important driver of clinical response in patients with less severe ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of automated identification of antimicrobial stewardship opportunities for suspected urinary tract infections. Impacts of risk-stratified inpatient penicillin allergy label delabeling on subsequent antimicrobial spectrum index and costs. Successful adaptation of an initiative to reduce unnecessary antibiotics for acute respiratory infections across two Veteran Affairs ambulatory healthcare systems. Trends in antibiotic utilization for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with and without signs of sepsis. Assessing a safety climate tool adapted to address respiratory illnesses in Canadian hospitals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1