scholarly journals Improvement in clinical and economic outcomes with empiric antibiotic therapy covering atypical pathogens for community-acquired pneumonia patients: a multicenter cohort study

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 102-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangru Ye ◽  
Jian Ma ◽  
Bijie Hu ◽  
Xiaodong Gao ◽  
Lixian He ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248817
Author(s):  
Anthony D. Bai ◽  
Neal Irfan ◽  
Cheryl Main ◽  
Philippe El-Helou ◽  
Dominik Mertz

Background It is unclear if a local audit would be useful in providing guidance on how to improve local practice of empiric antibiotic therapy. We performed an audit of antibiotic therapy in bacteremia to evaluate the proportion and risk factors for inadequate empiric antibiotic coverage. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients with positive blood cultures across 3 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada during October of 2019. Antibiotic therapy was considered empiric if it was administered within 24 hours after blood culture collection. Adequate coverage was defined as when the isolate from blood culture was tested to be susceptible to the empiric antibiotic. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to predict inadequate empiric coverage. Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical pathway based on patient risk factors was compared to clinician’s decision in predicting which bacteria to empirically cover. Results Of 201 bacteremia cases, empiric coverage was inadequate in 56 (27.9%) cases. Risk factors for inadequate empiric coverage included unknown source at initiation of antibiotic therapy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 2.76 95% CI 1.27–6.01, P = 0.010) and prior antibiotic therapy within 90 days (aOR of 2.46 95% CI 1.30–4.74, P = 0.006). A clinical pathway that considered community-associated infection as low risk for Pseudomonas was better at ruling out Pseudomonas bacteremia with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.17 (95% CI 0.03–1.10) compared to clinician’s decision with negative likelihood ratio of 0.34 (95% CI 0.10–1.22). Conclusions An audit of antibiotic therapy in bacteremia is feasible and may provide useful feedback on how to locally improve empiric antibiotic therapy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S167-S168
Author(s):  
Valerie Vaughn ◽  
Tejal N Gandhi ◽  
Lindsay A Petty ◽  
Payal K Patel ◽  
Hallie Prescott ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Antibiotic therapy has no known benefit against COVID-19, but is often initiated out of concern for concomitant bacterial infection. We sought to determine how common early empiric antibiotic therapy and community-onset bacterial co-infections are in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods In this multi-center cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 discharged from 32 Michigan hospitals during the COVID-19 Michigan surge, we describe the use of early empiric antibiotic therapy (within the first two days) and prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infection. Additionally, we assessed patient and hospital predictors of early empiric antibiotic using poison generalized estimating equation models. Results Between 3/10/2020 and 5/10/2020, data were collected on 951 COVID-19 PCR positive patients. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1. Nearly two thirds (62.4%, 593/951) of COVID-19 positive patients were prescribed early empiric antibiotic therapy, most of which (66.2%, 393/593) was directed at community-acquired pathogens. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed early empiric antibiotics varied from 40% to 90% (Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibiotic therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.01 [1.00–1.01] per year), required respiratory support (e.g., low flow oxygen, ARR: 1.16 [1.04–1.29]), had signs of a bacterial infection (e.g., lobar infiltrate, ARR: 1.17 [1.02–1.34]), or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.27 [1.11–1.45]); patients admitted later were less likely to receive empiric antibiotics (April vs. March, ARR: 0.72 [0.62–0.84], Table 2). Community-onset bacterial co-infections were identified in 4.5% (43/951) of COVID-19 positive patients (2.4% [23/951] positive blood culture; 1.9% [18/951] positive respiratory culture). Conclusion Despite low prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infections, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often received early empiric antibiotic therapy. Given the potential harms from unnecessary antibiotic use, including additional personal protective equipment to administer antibiotics, judicious antibiotic use is key in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Disclosures Tejal N. Gandhi, MD, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Grant/Research Support) Scott A. Flanders, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Research Grant or Support)Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Research Grant or Support)


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen ◽  
Marcelo Park ◽  
Otavio Tavares Ranzani

Abstract Background The very old patients (≥ 80 years-old, VOP) comprise a subpopulation increasingly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common reason for admission and the best strategy of mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure in this scenario is not fully known. Methods Multicenter cohort study of VOPs admitted with CAP in need of invasive (IMV) or noninvasive (NIV) mechanical ventilation to 11 Brazilian ICUs from 2009 through 2012. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association between ventilator strategy (NIV vs. IMV) and hospital mortality adjusting for confounding factors. We evaluated effect modification with interaction terms in pre-specified sub-groups. Results Of 369 VOPs admitted for CAP with respiratory failure, 232 (63%) received NIV and 137 (37%) received IMV as initial ventilatory strategy. IMV patients were sicker at ICU admission (median SOFA 8 vs. 4, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 114/232 (49%) for NIV and 90/137 (66%) for IMV. For the comparison NIV vs. IMV (reference), the crude odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33–0.78, p=0.002). This association was largely confounded by antecedent characteristics and non-respiratory SOFA (adjOR = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.41–1.20, p=0.196). The fully adjusted model, including Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH and Paco2, yielded an adjOR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46–1.41, p=0.452). There was no strong evidence of effect modification among relevant subgroups, such as Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≤ 150 (p = 0.30), acute respiratory acidosis (p = 0.42) and non-respiratory SOFA ≥ 4 (p = 0.53). Conclusions NIV was not associated with lower hospital mortality when compared to IMV in critically ill VOP admitted with CAP, but there was no strong signal of harm from its use. The main confounders of this association were both the severity of respiratory dysfunction and of extra-respiratory organ failures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document