Therapeutic advances in infectious disease · 2024
Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Stemler Jannik, Gavriilaki Eleni, Hlukhareva Oksana, Khanna Nina, Neofytos Dionysios, Akova Murat, Pagano Livio, Cisneros José-Miguel, Cornely Oliver A, Salmanton-García Jon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.
OBJECTIVE: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational survey study.
METHODS: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.
RESULTS: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for E. coli (10% vs 7%) Klebsiella spp. (10% vs 5%), and Pseudomonas spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR E. coli (5% vs 3%) Klebsiella spp. (5% vs 3%), and Pseudomonas spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.
CONCLUSION: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.
OBJECTIVE: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational survey study.
METHODS: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.
RESULTS: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for E. coli (10% vs 7%) Klebsiella spp. (10% vs 5%), and Pseudomonas spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR E. coli (5% vs 3%) Klebsiella spp. (5% vs 3%), and Pseudomonas spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.
CONCLUSION: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.