中性粒细胞减少性发热治疗中的抗生素使用和管理:对美国医疗机构的调查。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1017/ice.2024.103
Xiao Wang, Swarn V Arya, Sonal Patel, Stephen Saw, Mary A Decena, Rebecca Hirsh, David A Pegues, Matthew J Ziegler
{"title":"中性粒细胞减少性发热治疗中的抗生素使用和管理:对美国医疗机构的调查。","authors":"Xiao Wang, Swarn V Arya, Sonal Patel, Stephen Saw, Mary A Decena, Rebecca Hirsh, David A Pegues, Matthew J Ziegler","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe neutropenic fever management practices among healthcare institutions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Survey.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network (SRN) representing healthcare institutions within the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was distributed to SRN representatives, with questions pertaining to demographics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, supportive care, and neutropenic fever management. The survey was distributed from fall 2022 through spring 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>40 complete responses were recorded (54.8% response rate), with respondent institutions accounting for approximately 15.7% of 2021 US hematologic malignancy hospitalizations and 14.9% of 2020 US bone marrow transplantations. Most entities have institutional guidelines for neutropenic fever management (35, 87.5%) and prophylaxis (31, 77.5%), and first-line treatment included IV antipseudomonal antibiotics (35, 87.5% cephalosporin; 5, 12.5% penicillin; 0, 0% carbapenem).We observed significant heterogeneity in treatment course decisions, with roughly half (18, 45.0%) of respondents continuing antibiotics until neutrophil recovery, while the remainder having criteria for de-escalation prior to neutrophil recovery. Respondents were more willing to de-escalate prior to neutrophil recovery in patients with identified clinical (27, 67.5% with pneumonia) or microbiological (30, 75.0% with bacteremia) sources after dedicated treatment courses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found substantial variation in the practice of de-escalation of empiric antibiotics relative to neutrophil recovery, highlighting a need for more robust evidence for and adoption of this practice. No respondents use carbapenems as first-line therapy, comparing favorably to prior survey studies conducted in other countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibiotic practice and stewardship in the management of neutropenic fever: a survey of US institutions.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao Wang, Swarn V Arya, Sonal Patel, Stephen Saw, Mary A Decena, Rebecca Hirsh, David A Pegues, Matthew J Ziegler\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2024.103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe neutropenic fever management practices among healthcare institutions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Survey.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network (SRN) representing healthcare institutions within the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was distributed to SRN representatives, with questions pertaining to demographics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, supportive care, and neutropenic fever management. The survey was distributed from fall 2022 through spring 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>40 complete responses were recorded (54.8% response rate), with respondent institutions accounting for approximately 15.7% of 2021 US hematologic malignancy hospitalizations and 14.9% of 2020 US bone marrow transplantations. Most entities have institutional guidelines for neutropenic fever management (35, 87.5%) and prophylaxis (31, 77.5%), and first-line treatment included IV antipseudomonal antibiotics (35, 87.5% cephalosporin; 5, 12.5% penicillin; 0, 0% carbapenem).We observed significant heterogeneity in treatment course decisions, with roughly half (18, 45.0%) of respondents continuing antibiotics until neutrophil recovery, while the remainder having criteria for de-escalation prior to neutrophil recovery. Respondents were more willing to de-escalate prior to neutrophil recovery in patients with identified clinical (27, 67.5% with pneumonia) or microbiological (30, 75.0% with bacteremia) sources after dedicated treatment courses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found substantial variation in the practice of de-escalation of empiric antibiotics relative to neutrophil recovery, highlighting a need for more robust evidence for and adoption of this practice. No respondents use carbapenems as first-line therapy, comparing favorably to prior survey studies conducted in other countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.103\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的描述医疗机构对中性粒细胞减少性发热的处理方法:设计:调查:美国医疗流行病学学会研究网络(SRN)成员,代表美国医疗机构:向SRN代表发放电子调查问卷,问题涉及人口统计学、抗菌药物预防、支持性护理和中性粒细胞减少性发热管理。调查时间为2022年秋季至2023年春季:共收到 40 份完整回复(回复率为 54.8%),回复机构约占 2021 年美国血液系统恶性肿瘤住院人数的 15.7%,占 2020 年美国骨髓移植人数的 14.9%。大多数机构都制定了中性粒细胞减少性发热管理(35 家,87.5%)和预防(31 家,77.5%)的机构指南,一线治疗包括静脉注射抗伪菌抗生素(35 家,87.5% 为头孢菌素;5 家,12.5% 为青霉素;0 家,0% 为碳青霉烯类)。我们观察到治疗过程决策中存在明显的异质性,大约一半(18,45.0%)的受访者在中性粒细胞恢复前继续使用抗生素,而其余受访者则在中性粒细胞恢复前就有了停用抗生素的标准。受访者更愿意在中性粒细胞恢复之前,对经过专门治疗后确定有临床来源(肺炎 27 例,67.5%)或微生物来源(菌血症 30 例,75.0%)的患者停止使用抗生素:我们发现,相对于中性粒细胞恢复而言,经验性抗生素降级的做法存在很大差异,这突出表明需要更有力的证据来证明并采用这种做法。没有受访者将碳青霉烯类抗生素作为一线疗法,这与之前在其他国家进行的调查研究结果显示的情况相比较好。
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
Antibiotic practice and stewardship in the management of neutropenic fever: a survey of US institutions.

Objective: To describe neutropenic fever management practices among healthcare institutions.

Design: Survey.

Participants: Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network (SRN) representing healthcare institutions within the United States.

Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to SRN representatives, with questions pertaining to demographics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, supportive care, and neutropenic fever management. The survey was distributed from fall 2022 through spring 2023.

Results: 40 complete responses were recorded (54.8% response rate), with respondent institutions accounting for approximately 15.7% of 2021 US hematologic malignancy hospitalizations and 14.9% of 2020 US bone marrow transplantations. Most entities have institutional guidelines for neutropenic fever management (35, 87.5%) and prophylaxis (31, 77.5%), and first-line treatment included IV antipseudomonal antibiotics (35, 87.5% cephalosporin; 5, 12.5% penicillin; 0, 0% carbapenem).We observed significant heterogeneity in treatment course decisions, with roughly half (18, 45.0%) of respondents continuing antibiotics until neutrophil recovery, while the remainder having criteria for de-escalation prior to neutrophil recovery. Respondents were more willing to de-escalate prior to neutrophil recovery in patients with identified clinical (27, 67.5% with pneumonia) or microbiological (30, 75.0% with bacteremia) sources after dedicated treatment courses.

Conclusions: We found substantial variation in the practice of de-escalation of empiric antibiotics relative to neutrophil recovery, highlighting a need for more robust evidence for and adoption of this practice. No respondents use carbapenems as first-line therapy, comparing favorably to prior survey studies conducted in other countries.

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
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology provides original, peer-reviewed scientific articles for anyone involved with an infection control or epidemiology program in a hospital or healthcare facility. Written by infection control practitioners and epidemiologists and guided by an editorial board composed of the nation''s leaders in the field, ICHE provides a critical forum for this vital information.
期刊最新文献
Multiplexed gastrointestinal PCR panels for the evaluation of diarrhea in patients with acute leukemia. A pilot intervention trial to reduce the use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endourologic surgeries. Antimicrobial-resistant central line-associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units: findings from an Australian surveillance network, 2011-2022. Empiric antibiotic prescribing practices for gram-positive coverage of late-onset sepsis in neonatal intensive care units in North America. Integrating an industrial hygienist into the infection prevention and control program.
×
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