Effect of giving antibiotics within 4 hours to patients with community-acquired pneumonia on mortality, length of stay and critical care admission

Author(s):  
Olivia George ◽  
Ian Webster
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Habib Bedwani ◽  
William English ◽  
Christopher Smith ◽  
Shailendra Singh ◽  
Paul Vulliamy ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims A better understanding of patient monitoring and outcomes is required following emergency laparotomy. We aimed to evaluate recovery following emergency laparotomy during the ‘first wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemic and assess for COVID-19-associated coagulopathy in this group. Methods We performed a single-centre, retrospective cohort study on adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy from 23rdMarch – 16thMay 2020 comparing patients with or without suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Main outcome measures included; 30-day mortality, post-operative respiratory failure, ARDS and other complications, critical care admission and length of stay (CCLOS) and total length of stay (LOS). Laboratory results were collected for three days post-operatively including platelet counts and clotting screen. Results 33 patients undergoing 36 emergency laparotomies were included, of which 9 had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to have severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) (9/9 vs 5/24; p < 0.001), post-operative respiratory failure (9/9 vs 2/24; p < 0.001), ARDS (3/9 vs 0/24; p = 0.015) and need for critical care stay (9/9 vs 12/24; p = 0.012) with a longer LOS and CCLOS (17 vs 7 days; p = 0.004 and 6 vs 1 day; p < 0.001 respectively). Platelet counts were consistently lower on all peri-operative days and patients had a higher incidence of coagulopathy (7/11 vs 3/17; p = 0.020). Conclusions Emergency laparotomy is associated with increased post-operative morbidity in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 with increased respiratory complications and critical care stay. Post-operative patients with COVID-19 show mildly reduced platelet counts and deranged clotting that may be part of a COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Whebell ◽  
Emma J. Prower ◽  
Joe Zhang ◽  
Megan Pontin ◽  
David Grant ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Rapid response systems aim to achieve a timely response to the deteriorating patient; however, the existing literature varies on whether timing of escalation directly affects patient outcomes. Prior studies have been limited to using ‘decision to admit’ to critical care, or arrival in the emergency department as ‘time zero’, rather than the onset of physiological deterioration. The aim of this study is to establish if duration of abnormal physiology prior to critical care admission [‘Score to Door’ (STD) time] impacts on patient outcomes. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from pooled electronic medical records from a multi-site academic hospital was performed. All unplanned adult admissions to critical care from the ward with persistent physiological derangement [defined as sustained high National Early Warning Score (NEWS) > / = 7 that did not decrease below 5] were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was critical care mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of critical care admission and hospital mortality. The impact of STD time was adjusted for patient factors (demographics, sickness severity, frailty, and co-morbidity) and logistic factors (timing of high NEWS, and out of hours status) utilising logistic and linear regression models. Results Six hundred and thirty-two patients were included over the 4-year study period, 16.3% died in critical care. STD time demonstrated a small but significant association with critical care mortality [adjusted odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 1.0–1.04, p = 0.01)]. It was also associated with hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0–1.04, p = 0.026), and critical care length of stay. Each hour from onset of physiological derangement increased critical care length of stay by 1.2%. STD time was influenced by the initial NEWS, but not by logistic factors such as out-of-hours status, or pre-existing patient factors such as co-morbidity or frailty. Conclusion In a strictly defined population of high NEWS patients, the time from onset of sustained physiological derangement to critical care admission was associated with increased critical care and hospital mortality. If corroborated in further studies, this cohort definition could be utilised alongside the ‘Score to Door’ concept as a clinical indicator within rapid response systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s407-s407
Author(s):  
Lana Dbeibo ◽  
Joy Williams ◽  
Josh Sadowski ◽  
William Fadel ◽  
Vera Winn ◽  
...  

Background: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) detects the presence of the organism; a positive result therefore cannot differentiate between colonization and the pathogenic presence of the bacterium. This may result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and risking disruption of microbial flora, which may perpetuate the CDI cycle. Algorithm-based testing offers an advantage over PCR testing as it detects toxin, which allows differentiation between colonization and infection. Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of this testing algorithm in differentiating infection from colonization, it is unknown whether the test changes CDI treatment decisions. Our facility switched from PCR to an algorithm-based testing method for CDI in June 2018. Objective: In this study, we evaluated whether clinicians’ decisions to treat patients are impacted by a test result that implies colonization (GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ test), and we examined the impact of this decision on patient outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with a positive C. diff test between June 2017 and June 2019. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients treated for CDI. We compared this outcome in 3 groups of patients: those with a positive PCR test (June 2017–June 2018), those who had a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ or a GDH+/Tox+ test result (June 2018–June 2019). Secondary outcomes included toxic megacolon, critical care admission, and mortality in patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated. Results: Of patients with a positive PCR test, 86% were treated with CDI-specific antibiotics, whereas 70.4% with GDH+/Tox+ and 29.25% with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result were treated (P < .0001). Mortality was not different between patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated (2.7% vs 3.4%; P = .12), neither was critical care admission within 2 or 7 days of test result (2% vs 1.4%; P = .15) and (4.1% vs 5.4%, P = .39), respectively. There were no cases of toxic megacolon during the study period. Conclusions: The change to an algorithm-based C. difficile testing method had a significant impact on the clinicians’ decisions to treat patients with a positive test, as most patients with a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result did not receive treatment. These patients did not suffer more adverse outcomes compared to those who were treated, which has implications for testing practices. It remains to be explored whether clinicians are using clinical criteria to decide whether or not to treat patients with a positive algorithm-based test, as opposed to the more reflexive treatment of patients with a positive PCR test.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 669-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Randy Smith ◽  
Madeleine Ma ◽  
Luke O. Hansen ◽  
Nick Christensen ◽  
Kevin J. O'Leary

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document