Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Cefepime Administered via Intravenous Push Versus Intravenous Piggyback Infusion in Patients with Gram-Negative Bacteremia.

Introduction

Intravenous push (IVP) beta-lactam antibiotics have been adopted during parenteral solution shortages to conserve resources. Data evaluating the safety and efficacy of cefepime administered IVP versus intravenous piggyback (IVPB) infusion in Gram-negative bacteremia remain limited. We compared clinical outcomes of cefepime administered IVP versus IVPB in hospitalized patients with Gram-negative bacteremia.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study across a five-hospital health system from 1 January 2014 through 31 December 2021. Adults receiving cefepime for Gram-negative bacteremia were included. The primary outcome was a tailored desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) composite assessed through 30 days or hospital discharge, integrating clinical cure and cefepime-associated neurologic adverse effects. Clinical cure was defined as absence of recurrent bacteremia with the index pathogen after 48 h, no antibiotic escalation, and no in-hospital mortality.

Results

A total of 254 met the inclusion criteria (127 IVPB; 127 IVP). Baseline severity was similar between groups. The primary outcome assessed by DOOR revealed no difference between IVPB and IVP groups (p = 0.656). Vasopressor support during therapy was more frequent in the IVP group (22.0% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.011), and median hospital length of stay was longer (10 vs. 7 days, p = 0.020). No differences were noted in other endpoints. General ward admission (OIR [aOR] 2.563, 95% CI 1.271-5.168; p = 0.009) and genitourinary source of bacteremia (aOR 3.398, 95% CI 1.509-7.652; p = 0.003) independently predicted clinical cure.

Conclusions

In patients with Gram-negative bacteremia, cefepime administered IVP demonstrated similar safety and efficacy to IVPB infusion.