scholarly journals Carbapenem Treatment and Outcomes Among Patients With Culture-Positive Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections in US Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marya D Zilberberg ◽  
Brian H Nathanson ◽  
Kristen Ditch ◽  
Kenneth Lawrence ◽  
Melanie Olesky ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Carbapenems are a frequent firstline therapy in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). We examined the microbiology, epidemiology, and outcomes among patients hospitalized in the United States with culture-positive cIAIs in the context of their exposure to empiric carbapenem treatment (ECT). Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of Premier database of ~180 hospitals, 2013–2017. Using an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10-based algorithm, we identified all culture-positive adult patients hospitalized with cIAI and examined their microbiology, epidemiology, and outcomes. Results Among 4453 patients with cIAIs, 3771 (84.7%) had a gram-negative (GN) and 1782 (40.0%) a gram-positive organism; 1185 (26.6%) received ECT. Compared with those on non-ECT, patients on ECT were less frequently admitted from home (82.5% vs 86.0%) or emergently (76.0% vs 81.4%; P < .05 for each); E. coli were less frequent, whereas P. aeruginosa and Enterococcus spp. were more prevalent and resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (C3R; 10.1% vs 5.1%; P < .001) and carbapenems (CR; 3.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001) was more common. In adjusted analyses, ECT was associated with no rise in mortality, shorter postinfection length of stay (–0.59 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], –1.15 to –0.03), but higher postinfection costs ($3844; 95% CI, $1921 to $5767) and risk of Clostridioides difficile (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.50). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized with cIAI, the majority were gram-negative. Despite a 10% prevalence of C3R, fully one-quarter of all empiric regimens contained a carbapenem. ECT was a marker for slightly lower postinfection length of stay, but higher costs and risk of hospital complications.

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S773-S773
Author(s):  
Marya Zilberberg ◽  
Brian Nathanson ◽  
Kenneth Lawrence ◽  
Colby Johnson ◽  
Kristen Ditch ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) remain an important cause for hospitalization. Evidence-based guidelines recommend reserving broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage for high-risk cases in order to reduce overuse of certain antibiotic classes, particularly in the face of emerging carbapanem resistance. We examined the factors associated with use of empiric carbapenem treatment (ECT) among hospitalized patients with cIAI. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in the Premier database of approximately 180 hospitals, 2013–2017. Using an ICD-9/10 based algorithm including a requirement for a laparotomy/laparoscopy, we identified all adult patients hospitalized with cIAI and included those with a positive blood or abdominal culture. We derived and tested a multivariable logistic regression model to examine predictors of ECT. Results Among 321,317 hospitalized patients with cIAI, 4,453 (1.4%) were culture-positive, 1,185 (26.6%) of whom received ECT. Among those given ECT, >50% (682) had no risk factors for resistance, and in only 120 (10.1%) was an organism resistant to a third-generation cephalosporin (C3R extended spectrum β-lactamase [ESBL] phenotype) isolated. The top 5 variables associated with ECT use were: pre-cIAI anti-fungal therapy (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.91, 3.45) urgent (vs. emergent) admission (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21, 2.01), corticosteroids (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13, 1.99), ICU admission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17, 1.82), and presence of sepsis/septic shock (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.18, 1.74). The model had a moderately good fit (c-statistic = 0.683; 95% CI (0.665, 0.700), Hosmer-Lemeshow P value = 0.411). Conclusion Among patients hospitalized with a cIAI, 26.6% received ECT despite >50% lacking risk factors for resistance, and an only 10% prevalence of C3R in this cohort. This suggests that there remains an opportunity for carbapanem-sparing strategies. Further stratification of the risk for resistance is needed among patients with markers of high illness severity, such as those identified in our model. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1450-1457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor S. Sloan ◽  
Anna Sheahan ◽  
Jeffrey L. Stark ◽  
Robert Y. Suruki

Objective.To assess the prevalence of chronic opioid use in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and to compare the characteristics of patients with and without chronic opioid use.Methods.This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with AS identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Commercial and Medicaid claims data were examined using both specific (720.0 and M45.x) and broader (720.x and M45.x) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding definitions. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years on the date of first qualifying ICD code occurrence (the index date). Demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed in the 12-month period preceding the index date. The 12-month followup period was used to assess prevalence and characteristics of chronic opioid use.Results.Chronic opioid use was common among patients with commercial claims (23.5% of ICD 720.0 patients; 27.3% of ICD 720.x patients), and especially those with Medicaid claims (57.1% and 76.7%, respectively). The proportion of patients with claims for anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies during followup was often low, and for Medicaid patients was lower among those with chronic opioid use (29.6% of ICD 720.0 patients; 2.3% of ICD 720.x patients) than those without (47.1% and 7.1%, respectively). Among chronic opioid users in all cohorts, the cumulative supply of opioids was typically high (≥ 270 days in the followup period); most opioids prescribed were Schedule II.Conclusion.Patients with AS receive opioids with disturbing frequency. The infrequent prescription of recommended therapies to these patients reflects a need to optimize treatment further through education of patients and healthcare professionals alike.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly J. Horstman ◽  
Andrew M. Spiegelman ◽  
Aanand D. Naik ◽  
Barbara W. Trautner

OBJECTIVETo examine the impact of urine culture testing on day 1 of admission on inpatient antibiotic use and hospital length of stay (LOS).DESIGNWe performed a retrospective cohort study using a national dataset from 2009 to 2014.SETTINGThe study used data from 230 hospitals in the United States.PARTICIPANTSAdmissions for adults 18 years and older were included in this study. Hospitalizations were matched with coarsened exact matching by facility, patient age, gender, Medicare severity-diagnosis related group (MS-DRG), and 3 measures of disease severity.METHODSA multilevel Poisson model and a multilevel linear regression model were used to determine the impact of an admission urine culture on inpatient antibiotic use and LOS.RESULTSMatching produced a cohort of 88,481 patients (n=41,070 with a culture on day 1, n=47,411 without a culture). A urine culture on admission led to an increase in days of inpatient antibiotic use (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; P<.001) and resulted in an additional 36,607 days of inpatient antibiotic treatment. Urine culture on admission resulted in a 2.1% increase in LOS (P=.004). The predicted difference in bed days of care between admissions with and without a urine culture resulted in 6,071 additional bed days of care. The impact of urine culture testing varied by admitting diagnosis.CONCLUSIONSPatients with a urine culture sent on day 1 of hospital admission receive more days of antibiotics and have a longer hospital stay than patients who do not have a urine culture. Targeted interventions may reduce the potential harms associated with low-yield urine cultures on day 1.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:547–554


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e0135066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffie H. A. Brouns ◽  
Patricia M. Stassen ◽  
Suze L. E. Lambooij ◽  
Jeanne Dieleman ◽  
Irene T. P. Vanderfeesten ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document