Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2018
Appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy with imipenem/colistin in severe septic patients: observational cohort study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trifi Ahlem, Abdellatif Sami, Abdennebi Cyrine, Daly Foued, Nasri Rochdi, Touil Yosr, Ben Lakhal Salah
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Empiric antimicrobial therapy (EAMT) using imipenem/colistin is commonly prescribed as a first line therapy in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing imipenem/colistin as EAMT in ICU patients.
METHODS: A 3-year observational prospective study included ICU patients that required imipenem/colistin as EAMT. The EAMT was assessed according to microbiological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were: delay in apyrexia, delay in the decrease of the biological inflammatory parameters (BIP), the requirement for vasoactive agents, bacteriological eradication, length of stay, ventilator days and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: 79 administrations of EAMT in 70 patients were studied. EAMT was appropriate in 52% of the studied cases. An ICU stay > 6 days was related to inappropriateness, and chronic respiratory failure was associated with appropriateness. In the appropriate EAMT group, we showed: earlier apyrexia, shorter delay in the decrease of the BIP and a reduced significant vasopressors requirement. Furthermore, EAMT improved survival with a median gain of 4 days. Inappropriate EAMT increased the mortality risk by six. The acquisition of NI in ICU was also an independent factor of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: EAMT using imipenem-colistin was appropriate in half of the cases and inappropriateness was associated with an increased ICU mortality risk.
METHODS: A 3-year observational prospective study included ICU patients that required imipenem/colistin as EAMT. The EAMT was assessed according to microbiological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were: delay in apyrexia, delay in the decrease of the biological inflammatory parameters (BIP), the requirement for vasoactive agents, bacteriological eradication, length of stay, ventilator days and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: 79 administrations of EAMT in 70 patients were studied. EAMT was appropriate in 52% of the studied cases. An ICU stay > 6 days was related to inappropriateness, and chronic respiratory failure was associated with appropriateness. In the appropriate EAMT group, we showed: earlier apyrexia, shorter delay in the decrease of the BIP and a reduced significant vasopressors requirement. Furthermore, EAMT improved survival with a median gain of 4 days. Inappropriate EAMT increased the mortality risk by six. The acquisition of NI in ICU was also an independent factor of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: EAMT using imipenem-colistin was appropriate in half of the cases and inappropriateness was associated with an increased ICU mortality risk.