提高抗生素管理的依从性:初始显微镜在机械通气患者管理中的作用?

L. Perez, G. Narvaez, C. Dias
{"title":"提高抗生素管理的依从性:初始显微镜在机械通气患者管理中的作用?","authors":"L. Perez, G. Narvaez, C. Dias","doi":"10.1017/ice.2016.305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor—Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most serious healthcare-associated infections; it has a high mortality rate, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). Diagnosing VAP is a complex issue, and the precise role of microbiologic parameters such as cultures (if qualitative or quantitative), as well as Gram stain, remain unclear. Microscopic evaluation by Gram stain of easily obtained respiratory secretions, such as endotracheal aspirate (EA), could provide a potentially useful guide to appropriate antimicrobial therapy in patients with suspected VAP. To evaluate the performance of microscopic examinations by Gram staining of endotracheal aspirates (EAs) recovered from intensive care patients, a prospective study was performed. Endotracheal aspirates were consecutively recovered from mechanically ventilated patients in an adult ICU in a tertiary hospital of Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, between January 1 and October 3, 2016. Smears were stained with Gram stain and were then cultured quantitatively. As selection criteria, only specimens with <10 squamous epithelial cells by microscopic examination in a low-power field were included in the study. Also, microorganisms presenting growth ≥10 colony forming units (CFU) per milliliter of sample plated were considered a positive culture. Results from microscopy and culture were obtained independently and carried out by double-blind analysis. A total of 717 EAs were obtained. Among them, 52 EAs were excluded due to the presence of >10 epithelial cells, and 13 (1.8%) were excluded due to inconsistent results in the culture (growth of non-pathogenic organisms such as yeasts). In the remaining 652 samples, a negative culture (ie, no bacterial growth ≥10CFU/mL) was observed in 415 (63.6%). Among the 237 positive cultures, gram-negative rods were recovered from 218 (92%) and gram-positive cocci were recovered from 19 (8%). For gram-positive cocci, only S. aureus were recovered in sufficient numbers to meet study criteria; only 2 of these (10.5%) were methicillin-resistant (MRSA). Overall, 560 of 652 (85.9%) samples showed agreement between Gram stain and culture results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and their confidence intervals (95% CI) for clustered gram-positive cocci and gram-negative rods are shown in Table 1. Fast and accurate microbiological diagnosis of VAP is a major challenge, and no generally accepted gold standard exists for its diagnosis. In recent guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society on the management of adults with hospital-acquired pneumonia and VAP, noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures has been suggested instead of invasive sampling with quantitative cultures. Although universally accepted as a useful tool for evaluating clinical specimens, the real value of the Gram stain to guide an empirical approach is also controversial. Detection of gram-positive cocci in clusters on direct microscopic examination of EAs would constitute an important tool in antimicrobial stewardship and the use of anti–gram-positive agents, especially when S. aureus is recovered. On the other hand, several studies have pointed to the low sensitivity and positive predictive values of the Gram stain, contradicting its use as a presumptive guide to therapy. At our institution, a prior study showed a very high predictive negative value of the Gram stain of EAs when grampositive cocci in clusters were considered; this study confirmed a virtually 100% negative predictive value (Table 1). To avoid inappropriate and empirical use of vancomycin, it is important to know when not to use this drug especially in a setting with very low MRSA prevalence, such as ours. For this purpose, the Gram stain serves a crucial purpose, particularly when gram-positive cocci in clusters are concerned. In conclusion, Gram staining of EAs showed a very high negative predictive value in this study, contributing to a more conservative use of antimicrobials. In healthcare institutions with a low VAP prevalence due to MRSA, a Gram stain of EAs without the presence of gram-positive cocci may be the strongest reason to avoid the use of vancomycin.","PeriodicalId":13655,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology","volume":"6 1","pages":"376 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Compliance With Antibiotic Stewardship: What Is the Role of Initial Microscopy on the Management of Mechanically Ventilated Patients?\",\"authors\":\"L. Perez, G. Narvaez, C. Dias\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2016.305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To the Editor—Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most serious healthcare-associated infections; it has a high mortality rate, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). Diagnosing VAP is a complex issue, and the precise role of microbiologic parameters such as cultures (if qualitative or quantitative), as well as Gram stain, remain unclear. Microscopic evaluation by Gram stain of easily obtained respiratory secretions, such as endotracheal aspirate (EA), could provide a potentially useful guide to appropriate antimicrobial therapy in patients with suspected VAP. To evaluate the performance of microscopic examinations by Gram staining of endotracheal aspirates (EAs) recovered from intensive care patients, a prospective study was performed. Endotracheal aspirates were consecutively recovered from mechanically ventilated patients in an adult ICU in a tertiary hospital of Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, between January 1 and October 3, 2016. Smears were stained with Gram stain and were then cultured quantitatively. As selection criteria, only specimens with <10 squamous epithelial cells by microscopic examination in a low-power field were included in the study. Also, microorganisms presenting growth ≥10 colony forming units (CFU) per milliliter of sample plated were considered a positive culture. Results from microscopy and culture were obtained independently and carried out by double-blind analysis. A total of 717 EAs were obtained. Among them, 52 EAs were excluded due to the presence of >10 epithelial cells, and 13 (1.8%) were excluded due to inconsistent results in the culture (growth of non-pathogenic organisms such as yeasts). In the remaining 652 samples, a negative culture (ie, no bacterial growth ≥10CFU/mL) was observed in 415 (63.6%). Among the 237 positive cultures, gram-negative rods were recovered from 218 (92%) and gram-positive cocci were recovered from 19 (8%). For gram-positive cocci, only S. aureus were recovered in sufficient numbers to meet study criteria; only 2 of these (10.5%) were methicillin-resistant (MRSA). Overall, 560 of 652 (85.9%) samples showed agreement between Gram stain and culture results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and their confidence intervals (95% CI) for clustered gram-positive cocci and gram-negative rods are shown in Table 1. Fast and accurate microbiological diagnosis of VAP is a major challenge, and no generally accepted gold standard exists for its diagnosis. In recent guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society on the management of adults with hospital-acquired pneumonia and VAP, noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures has been suggested instead of invasive sampling with quantitative cultures. Although universally accepted as a useful tool for evaluating clinical specimens, the real value of the Gram stain to guide an empirical approach is also controversial. Detection of gram-positive cocci in clusters on direct microscopic examination of EAs would constitute an important tool in antimicrobial stewardship and the use of anti–gram-positive agents, especially when S. aureus is recovered. On the other hand, several studies have pointed to the low sensitivity and positive predictive values of the Gram stain, contradicting its use as a presumptive guide to therapy. At our institution, a prior study showed a very high predictive negative value of the Gram stain of EAs when grampositive cocci in clusters were considered; this study confirmed a virtually 100% negative predictive value (Table 1). To avoid inappropriate and empirical use of vancomycin, it is important to know when not to use this drug especially in a setting with very low MRSA prevalence, such as ours. For this purpose, the Gram stain serves a crucial purpose, particularly when gram-positive cocci in clusters are concerned. In conclusion, Gram staining of EAs showed a very high negative predictive value in this study, contributing to a more conservative use of antimicrobials. In healthcare institutions with a low VAP prevalence due to MRSA, a Gram stain of EAs without the presence of gram-positive cocci may be the strongest reason to avoid the use of vancomycin.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"376 - 377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.305\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对编辑来说,呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)是最严重的医疗相关感染之一;它的死亡率很高,特别是在重症监护病房(icu)。诊断VAP是一个复杂的问题,微生物参数(如培养物(定性或定量)以及革兰氏染色)的确切作用尚不清楚。通过革兰氏染色镜检容易获得的呼吸道分泌物,如气管内吸入物(EA),可以为疑似VAP患者的适当抗菌治疗提供潜在有用的指导。为评价重症患者气管内吸入物(EAs)革兰氏染色显微检查的性能,进行了一项前瞻性研究。2016年1月1日至10月3日,在巴西南部阿雷格里港某三级医院的成人ICU中,对机械通气患者进行气管内吸出。革兰氏染色染色后定量培养。作为选择标准,由于培养(如酵母等非致病性生物的生长)结果不一致,仅排除了具有10个上皮细胞和13个(1.8%)的标本。在其余652份样本中,415份(63.6%)呈阴性培养(即没有细菌生长≥10CFU/mL)。237例阳性培养中,218例(92%)检出革兰氏阴性杆状体,19例(8%)检出革兰氏阳性球菌。对于革兰氏阳性球菌,只有金黄色葡萄球菌的回收数量足以满足研究标准;其中仅有2例(10.5%)耐甲氧西林(MRSA)。总体而言,652个样本中有560个(85.9%)显示革兰氏染色与培养结果一致。簇状革兰氏阳性球菌和革兰氏阴性杆状菌的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值及其置信区间(95% CI)见表1。快速准确的VAP微生物诊断是一项重大挑战,目前尚无公认的诊断金标准。在美国传染病学会和美国胸科学会最近关于医院获得性肺炎和VAP成人管理的指南中,建议采用半定量培养的非侵入性采样代替定量培养的侵入性采样。虽然普遍接受作为评估临床标本的有用工具,革兰氏染色指导经验方法的真正价值也是有争议的。在ea直接显微镜检查中检测成簇的革兰氏阳性球菌将成为抗菌药物管理和使用抗革兰氏阳性药物的重要工具,特别是当金黄色葡萄球菌被回收时。另一方面,一些研究指出革兰氏染色的低敏感性和积极的预测价值,与将其用作假定的治疗指南相矛盾。在我们的机构,先前的一项研究表明,当考虑到成群的革兰氏阳性球菌时,ea的革兰氏染色具有非常高的预测阴性值;这项研究证实了几乎100%的阴性预测值(表1)。为了避免不恰当的和经验性的使用万古霉素,重要的是要知道什么时候不要使用这种药物,特别是在MRSA患病率非常低的环境中,比如我们的环境。为此,革兰氏染色起着至关重要的作用,特别是当革兰氏阳性球菌聚集在一起时。总之,本研究中ea革兰氏染色显示出非常高的阴性预测值,有助于更保守地使用抗菌素。在因MRSA导致VAP患病率较低的医疗机构中,没有革兰氏阳性球菌存在的ea革兰氏染色可能是避免使用万古霉素的最重要原因。
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
Improving Compliance With Antibiotic Stewardship: What Is the Role of Initial Microscopy on the Management of Mechanically Ventilated Patients?
To the Editor—Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most serious healthcare-associated infections; it has a high mortality rate, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). Diagnosing VAP is a complex issue, and the precise role of microbiologic parameters such as cultures (if qualitative or quantitative), as well as Gram stain, remain unclear. Microscopic evaluation by Gram stain of easily obtained respiratory secretions, such as endotracheal aspirate (EA), could provide a potentially useful guide to appropriate antimicrobial therapy in patients with suspected VAP. To evaluate the performance of microscopic examinations by Gram staining of endotracheal aspirates (EAs) recovered from intensive care patients, a prospective study was performed. Endotracheal aspirates were consecutively recovered from mechanically ventilated patients in an adult ICU in a tertiary hospital of Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, between January 1 and October 3, 2016. Smears were stained with Gram stain and were then cultured quantitatively. As selection criteria, only specimens with <10 squamous epithelial cells by microscopic examination in a low-power field were included in the study. Also, microorganisms presenting growth ≥10 colony forming units (CFU) per milliliter of sample plated were considered a positive culture. Results from microscopy and culture were obtained independently and carried out by double-blind analysis. A total of 717 EAs were obtained. Among them, 52 EAs were excluded due to the presence of >10 epithelial cells, and 13 (1.8%) were excluded due to inconsistent results in the culture (growth of non-pathogenic organisms such as yeasts). In the remaining 652 samples, a negative culture (ie, no bacterial growth ≥10CFU/mL) was observed in 415 (63.6%). Among the 237 positive cultures, gram-negative rods were recovered from 218 (92%) and gram-positive cocci were recovered from 19 (8%). For gram-positive cocci, only S. aureus were recovered in sufficient numbers to meet study criteria; only 2 of these (10.5%) were methicillin-resistant (MRSA). Overall, 560 of 652 (85.9%) samples showed agreement between Gram stain and culture results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and their confidence intervals (95% CI) for clustered gram-positive cocci and gram-negative rods are shown in Table 1. Fast and accurate microbiological diagnosis of VAP is a major challenge, and no generally accepted gold standard exists for its diagnosis. In recent guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society on the management of adults with hospital-acquired pneumonia and VAP, noninvasive sampling with semiquantitative cultures has been suggested instead of invasive sampling with quantitative cultures. Although universally accepted as a useful tool for evaluating clinical specimens, the real value of the Gram stain to guide an empirical approach is also controversial. Detection of gram-positive cocci in clusters on direct microscopic examination of EAs would constitute an important tool in antimicrobial stewardship and the use of anti–gram-positive agents, especially when S. aureus is recovered. On the other hand, several studies have pointed to the low sensitivity and positive predictive values of the Gram stain, contradicting its use as a presumptive guide to therapy. At our institution, a prior study showed a very high predictive negative value of the Gram stain of EAs when grampositive cocci in clusters were considered; this study confirmed a virtually 100% negative predictive value (Table 1). To avoid inappropriate and empirical use of vancomycin, it is important to know when not to use this drug especially in a setting with very low MRSA prevalence, such as ours. For this purpose, the Gram stain serves a crucial purpose, particularly when gram-positive cocci in clusters are concerned. In conclusion, Gram staining of EAs showed a very high negative predictive value in this study, contributing to a more conservative use of antimicrobials. In healthcare institutions with a low VAP prevalence due to MRSA, a Gram stain of EAs without the presence of gram-positive cocci may be the strongest reason to avoid the use of vancomycin.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ICE volume 39 issue 7 Cover and Front matter ICE volume 39 issue 7 Cover and Back matter ICE volume 39 issue 6 Cover and Front matter ICE volume 39 issue 6 Cover and Back matter ICE volume 39 issue 5 Cover and Back matter
×
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