Outcomes of Cefazolin versus Ceftriaxone Therapy in Treating Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in Adults

1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1503-1507 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Thompson ◽  
Daniel M. Huse ◽  
Gerry Oster

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether choice of a first- versus third-generation cephalosporin as initial therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in hospitalized adults affects the course and duration of care, both of which may influence antimicrobial treatment cost. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of discharge abstracts and hospital pharmacy records. SETTING: Forty-eight US acute-care hospitals. PATIENTS: One thousand ninety-two hospitalized adults (aged >17 y) with principal diagnoses of lower respiratory tract infections (DRGs 79–80, 89–90). INTERVENTIONS: Cefazolin or ceftriaxone, given as sole antimicrobial therapy for at least one day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The number of patients who received another parenteral antibiotic anytime prior to hospital discharge; (2) the number of days during which patients received any parenteral antibiotic while in the hospital; and (3) the number of days patients remained hospitalized following the start of antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Patients treated with cefazolin (n=763) were more likely to receive another parenteral antibiotic while in the hospital (30.3 vs. 20.7 percent; p<0.001) and received more total days of therapy (7.2 vs. 6.7 d; p<0.05) than those treated with ceftriaxone (n=329). Although the time to hospital discharge did not differ in the full sample (9.2 d for both groups), it was greater among those receiving cefazolin (8.6 vs. 8.0 d; p<0.05) when patients with lengths of stay exceeding 24 days were excluded from both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to acquisition cost, differences in course and duration of care should be considered when determining the most cost-effective choice for antimicrobial therapy.

1999 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 709-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahad A. Al-Eidan ◽  
James C. McElnay ◽  
M. G. Scott ◽  
M. P. Kearney ◽  
K. E. U. Troughton ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s360-s360
Author(s):  
Mandelin Cooper ◽  
Hayley Burgess ◽  
Jeffrey Cuthbert ◽  
Edward Joel Septimus ◽  
Heather Signorelli

Background: Appropriate testing of blood procalcitonin (PCT) can potentially inform antibiotic de-escalation in patients with severe infections. When used along with observed clinical improvements, PCT testing can support antimicrobial stewardship. However, this testing must be used optimally to ensure that it is actionable, cost-effective, and provides patient benefit. Although this test is widely used, little is known about the appropriateness of this testing in select populations. Methods: In this retrospective review, we evaluated PCT monitoring patterns and appropriateness of use and relationship to antibiotic days of therapy in a system of community hospitals. We evaluated the use of PCT testing in patients with known confounders, namely pregnancy, chronic kidney disease, or neutropenia, which we classified as “inappropriate use” because these conditions can affect the interpretation of PCT results. We also evaluated the relationship between PCT testing and antibiotic days of therapy for patients with sepsis, pneumonia, or lower respiratory tract infections. Results: In a 1-year period, ∼206,302 PCT tests were performed at 146 facilities, an average of ∼1,413 per facility per year. Approximately 27.7% of these tests were given to patients who were pregnant or had a confounding comorbidity such as chronic kidney disease or neutropenia. Of these “inappropriate” tests, >90% were given to patients with chronic kidney disease. Older patients (aged 60–80 years, n = 93,021) were more likely to receive a PCT test while also having a confounding comorbidities; 24% of older patients with a PCT test also had chronic kidney disease. Of all patients with a PCT test and chronic kidney disease, ∼76% were also diagnosed with either sepsis, pneumonia, or lower respiratory tract infections. Conclusions: Confounding conditions can affect PCT levels independently of infection. Additionally, some clinicians use PCT tests as probes for other physiological maladies. This analysis demonstrated that there is opportunity for education about the appropriate use of this test, how to interpret results in the presence of confounding conditions, and how to transform PCT test results into actions that facilitate antimicrobial stewardship and better patient care.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document