Evaluation of Meropenem Extended Versus Intermittent Infusion Dosing Protocol in Critically Ill Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 763-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabeela Ahmed ◽  
Shin-Pung Jen ◽  
Diana Altshuler ◽  
John Papadopoulos ◽  
Vinh P. Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Intermittent Infusion ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Protocol Group

Extended infusion (EI) administration of β-lactams can improve target attainment in critically ill patients with altered pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. To optimize meropenem dosing in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock, our Antimicrobial Stewardship Program implemented a EI meropenem (EIM) protocol in an 18-bed Medical Intensive Care Unit in March 2014. In this retrospective study, we compared intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and clinical response in patients who received meropenem for ≥72 hours administered per EIM protocol of 1 g over 3 hours every 8 hours versus intermittent infusion (IIM) protocol of 500 mg over 30 minutes every 6 hours. Age, weight, comorbidities, severity of illness, and vasopressor use were comparable between groups (EIM protocol n = 52, IIM protocol n = 96). The IIM protocol group had higher rates of renal dose adjustment at meropenem initiation. Among 56 identified gram-negative (GN) pathogens, 94% had meropenem minimal inhibitory concentration ≤0.25 mg/L. The ICU mortality was lower (19 vs 37%; P = .032) and clinical response was higher (83% vs 46%; P < .01) in the EIM protocol versus IIM protocol group. Total vasopressor days were shorter (2 vs 3 days; P = .038), and white blood cell normalization rate was higher (87% vs 51%; P < .01) in the EIM protocol versus IIM protocol group. There was no difference in days of mechanical ventilation, duration of therapy, and ICU stay. The IIM protocol was also identified as an independent risk factor associated with ICU mortality (hazard ratio: 3.653, 95% confidence interval: 1.689-7.981; P = .001) after adjusting for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. In this cohort of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock and highly susceptible GN pathogens, there was improved mortality and clinical response in the EIM protocol group.

scholarly journals Serum potassium levels and outcomes in critically ill patients in the medical intensive care unit

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 1254-1262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surat Tongyoo ◽  
Tanuwong Viarasilpa ◽  
Chairat Permpikul
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Serum Potassium ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Medical Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Medical Intensive Care

Objective To compare the outcomes of patients with and without a mean serum potassium (K+) level within the recommended range (3.5–4.5 mEq/L). Methods This prospective cohort study involved patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of Siriraj Hospital from May 2012 to February 2013. The patients’ baseline characteristics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, serum K+ level, and hospital outcomes were recorded. Patients with a mean K+ level of 3.5 to 4.5 mEq/L and with all individual K+ values of 3.0 to 5.0 mEq/L were allocated to the normal K+ group. The remaining patients were allocated to the abnormal K+ group. Results In total, 160 patients were included. Their mean age was 59.3±18.3 years, and their mean APACHE II score was 21.8±14.0. The normal K+ group comprised 74 (46.3%) patients. The abnormal K+ group had a significantly higher mean APACHE II score, proportion of coronary artery disease, and rate of vasopressor treatment. An abnormal serum K+ level was associated with significantly higher ICU mortality and incidence of ventricular fibrillation. Conclusion Critically ill patients with abnormal K+ levels had a higher incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and ICU mortality than patients with normal K+ levels.

scholarly journals Morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients with invasive Group A streptococcus infection: an observational study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viveka Björck ◽  
Lisa I Påhlman ◽  
Mikael Bodelsson ◽  
Ann_Cathrine Petersson ◽  
Thomas Kander
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Renal Failure ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Saps 3 ◽  
Group A ◽  
Lower Mortality Risk

Abstract Background Group A streptococci (GAS) are known to cause serious invasive infections but little is known about outcomes when patients with these infections are admitted to intensive care. We wanted to describe critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock due to invasive GAS (iGAS) and compare them with other patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Methods Adult patients admitted to a general intensive care unit (ICU) in Sweden (2007-2019) were screened for severe sepsis or septic shock according to Sepsis 2 definition. Individuals with iGAS infection were identified. The outcome variables were mortality, days alive and free of vasopressors and invasive mechanical ventilation, maximum acute kidney injury score for creatinine, use of continuous renal replacement therapy and maximum sequential organ failure assessment score during the ICU stay. Age, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS 3) and iGAS were used as independent, explanatory variables in regression analysis. Cox regression was used for survival analyses. Results iGAS was identified in 53 of 1021 (5.2%) patients. Patients with iGAS presented lower median SAPS 3 score (62 [56–72]) vs 71 [61–81]), p < 0.001), had a higher frequency of cardiovascular cause of admission to the ICU (38 [72%] vs 145 [15%], p < 0.001) and had a higher median creatinine score (173 [100–311] vs 133 [86–208] µmol/L, p < 0.019). Of the GAS isolates, 50% were serotyped emm 1/T1 and this group showed signs of more pronounced circulatory and renal failure than patients with non- emm 1/T1, ( p = 0.036 and p = 0.007, respectively). After correction for severity of illness (SAPS 3) and age, iGAS infection was associated with lower mortality risk; 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) 0.204–0.746, p < 0.001. Morbidity analyses demonstrated that iGAS patients were more likely to develop renal failure. Conclusion Critically ill patients with iGAS infection had a lower mortality risk but a higher degree of renal failure compared to similarly ill sepsis patients. emm 1/T1 was found to be the most dominant serotype and patients with emm1 /T1 demonstrated more circulatory and renal failure than patients with other serotypes of iGAS.

scholarly journals Morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients with invasive Group A streptococcus infection: an observational study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viveka Björck ◽  
Lisa I Påhlman ◽  
Mikael Bodelsson ◽  
Ann_Cathrine Petersson ◽  
Thomas Kander
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Renal Failure ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Saps 3 ◽  
Group A ◽  
Lower Mortality Risk

Abstract Background Group A streptococci (GAS) are known to cause serious invasive infections but little is known about outcomes when patients with these infections are admitted to intensive care. We wanted to describe critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock due to invasive GAS (iGAS) and compare them with other patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Methods Adult patients admitted to a general intensive care unit (ICU) in Sweden (2007-2019) were screened for severe sepsis or septic shock according to Sepsis 2 definition. Individuals with iGAS infection were identified. The outcome variables were mortality, days alive and free of vasopressors and invasive mechanical ventilation, maximum acute kidney injury score for creatinine, use of continuous renal replacement therapy and maximum sequential organ failure assessment score during the ICU stay. Age, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS 3) and iGAS were used as independent, explanatory variables in regression analysis. Cox regression was used for survival analyses. Results iGAS was identified in 53 of 1021 (5.2%) patients. Patients with iGAS presented lower median SAPS 3 score (62 [56–72]) vs 71 [61–81]), p < 0.001), had a higher frequency of cardiovascular cause of admission to the ICU (38 [72%] vs 145 [15%], p < 0.001) and had a higher median creatinine score (173 [100–311] vs 133 [86–208] µmol/L, p < 0.019). Of the GAS isolates, 50% were serotyped emm 1/T1 and this group showed signs of more pronounced circulatory and renal failure than patients with non- emm 1/T1, ( p = 0.036 and p = 0.007, respectively). After correction for severity of illness (SAPS 3) and age, iGAS infection was associated with lower mortality risk; 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) 0.204–0.746, p < 0.001. Morbidity analyses demonstrated that iGAS patients were more likely to develop renal failure. Conclusion Critically ill patients with iGAS infection had a lower mortality risk but a higher degree of renal failure compared to similarly ill sepsis patients. emm 1/T1 was found to be the most dominant serotype and patients with emm1 /T1 demonstrated more circulatory and renal failure than patients with other serotypes of iGAS.

Effect of Delayed Admission to Intensive Care Units from the Emergency Department on the Mortality of Critically Ill Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Suleyman Sabaz ◽  
Sinan Asar ◽  
Zafer Cukurova ◽  
Nagihan Sabaz ◽  
Halil Doğan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Prolonged Stay ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Delayed Group

Background: Increasing in emergency department need to critical care, the number of intensive care unit bed worldwide is inadequate to meet these applies. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of waiting for admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the Emergency Department (ED) on the length of stay in the ICU and the mortality of critically ill patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study carried out between January 2012 - 2019 patients admitted to the ICU of a training and research hospital. The data of 1297 adult patients were obtained by searching the Clinical Decision Support System. Results: The data of the patients were evaluated in two groups as those considered to be delayed and non-delayed. It was determined that the delay of two hours increased the risk of mortality 1.5 times. Hazard Ratios (HR) was 1.548 (1.077 - 2.224). Patients whose ICU admission was delayed by 5 - 6 hours were found to have the highest risk in terms of mortality (HR = 2.291 [1.503 - 3.493]). A statistically significant difference was found in the ICU mortality, 28-day and, 90-day mortality between the two groups. ICU mortality for all patients’ general was 25.2% (327/1297). This rate was 11.4% (55/481) in the non-delayed group and 33.3% (272/816) in the delayed group (P < 0.001). The 28-day mortality rate for all patients’ general was 26.9% (349/1297). This rate was found to be 13.5% (65/481) in the non-delayed group and 34.8% (284/816) in the delayed group (P < 0.001). The 90-day mortality for all patients’ general was 28.4% (368/1297). This rate was 14.1% (68/481) in the non-delayed group and 36.8% (300/816) in the delayed group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Prolonged stay in the ED before admission to the ICU is associated with worse consequences, and increased mortality.

The Impact of Venous Thromboembolism In Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Major Clinical outcomes

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3327-3327
Author(s):  
Alessandra Malato ◽  
Francesco Dentali ◽  
Francesco Fabbiano ◽  
Giorgia Saccullo ◽  
Vincenzo Abbadessa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Patient Stay

Abstract Abstract 3327 Background: Critically ill patients are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of premorbid medical and surgical conditions. The clinical consequences of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) have the potential to be serious yet are frequently unrecognized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In contrast to the extensive documentation on the short and long–term outcomes of patients with DVT evaluated in other clinical settings, little is known about the clinical course of this disease in the ICU setting. We hypothesized that both undetected and clinically evident VTE would affect the prognosis of critically ill patients. Purpose: To systematically review whether a diagnosis of DVT in critically ill patients affects clinically important outcomes including length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. Material and Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched up to June 2010. Two reviewers performed study selection independently. Studies were selected if evaluate one or more of the following outcomes: hospital and ICU mortality, duration of patient stay in hospital and in ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Two investigators independently extracted and reviewed data from each study; including study and patient characteristics and outcomes. Association between DVT and hospital and ICU mortality, and the mean difference of duration of patient stay in hospital and in ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with and without DVT were calculated using a random-effects model (DerSimionan and Laird method). Pooled results are reported as relative risk (RR) and mean difference and are presented with 95% confidence interval (CI) and with 2-sided P values. A P value of .05 or less was considered statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic, which assesses the appropriateness of pooling the individual study results [22]. The I2 value provides an estimate of the amount of variance across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Cohen's Kappa for inter-rater agreement was used to assess inter-rater reliability. Results: Six studies for a total of 1518 patients were included in the systematic review. Patients diagnosed with DVT compared to those without DVT had increased ICU and hospital stay (7.3 days (95% CI 1.4 to 13.2; P= 0.02) and 16.5 days (95% CI 1.51 to 30.59; P= 0.03), respectively. Duration of mechanical ventilation appeared to be increased in patients with DVT although this difference was not statistically significant (weighted mean difference: 3.41 days 95 % CI –1.12 to 7.94; P=0.14). Patients diagnosed with DVT also had a marginally significant increase in the RR of hospital mortality (RR 1.31 95%CI,0.99 to 1.74,P=0.06), and a non statistically significant increase in the RR of ICU mortality (RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.19; P = 0.17). Conclusions: A diagnosis of DVT upon ICU admission appears to affect clinically important outcomes including length of ICU and hospital stay and hospital mortality. Further research involving larger prospective study designs are warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Outcome of Continuous versus Intermittent Application of Meropenem in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A A Abdalalim ◽  
W H Nofal ◽  
R A Abdelrazik ◽  
K M Megahed
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Infusion Group ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Culture And Sensitivity ◽  
Wbc Count

Abstract Background Severe infections in critically ill patients and increasing antibiotic resistance are major healthcare problems affecting morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit. Antibacterial drug discovery and development have slowed considerably in recent years. Aim of the Work Study the outcome of continuous versus intermittent application of meropenem in critically ill patients with septic shock. Patients and Methods This study was carried out on one hundred patients of both sex from those admitted to intensive care unit in Damanhour Medical National Institute.An Informed consent was taken from all patients or their next of kin. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: Group I (Infusion group) patients received a loading dose of 2g of meropenem I.V over 30 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 4g of meropenem over 24 hours. Group II (Bolus group) patients received 2g of meropenem over 30 minutes every 8 hours. Antibiotic therapy stopped at improvement of the clinical state and signs of subsidence of infection (body temperature below 38, 3 °C for more than 24 hours, white blood cells (WBC) count less than 11, 000/mm3 or decrease by 25% of maximal value)minimum time for therapy 5days and maximum time 10 days. Results In the present study there were two groups of critically ill patients with septic shock each of 50 patients. Group one was given meropenem after culture and sensitivity as one gram infusion over 360 minutes every 6 hours. The second group was given meropenem also after culture and sensitivity as two grams bolus over 30 minutes every 8 hours. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding age and sex distribution. On admission the two groups had high APACHE-II score, but with no significant difference. Also there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the site of infection nor the infecting organism. As regards WBCs count the mean WBC count was higher in group II than in group I on days 1 and 3 of treatment but there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion Administration of meropenem on cultured based treatment as 1g/6hrs infusion compared to 2g/8hrs bolus was associated with significant reduction of WBCs count, CRP levels, SOFA score and ICU stay. Improved clinical outcome, reduction in bacterial growth and decreased mortality were better in the infusion group but not significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document