Patterns of antimicrobial therapy in severe nosocomial infections: empiric choices, proportion of appropriate therapy, and adaptation rates—a multicentre, observational survey in critically ill patients
Received 17 September 2009; accepted 23 November 2009. published online 01 February 2010.
Abstract
This prospective, observational multicentre (n=24) study investigated relationships between antimicrobial choices and rates of empiric appropriate or adequate therapy, and subsequent adaptation of therapy in 171 ICU patients with severe nosocomial infections. Appropriate antibiotic therapy was defined as in vitro susceptibility of the causative pathogen and clinical response to the agent administered. In non-microbiologically documented infections, therapy was considered adequate in the case of favourable clinical response <5 days. Patients had pneumonia (n=127; 66 ventilator-associated), intra-abdominal infection (n=23), and bloodstream infection (n=21). Predominant pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=29) Escherichia coli (n=26), Staphylococcus aureus (n=22), and Enterobacter aerogenes (n=21). In 49.6% of infections multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria were involved, mostly extended-spectrum β-lactamase (EBSL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae and MDR non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria. Prior antibiotic exposure and hospitalisation in a general ward prior to ICU admission were risk factors for MDR. Empiric therapy was appropriate/adequate in 63.7% of cases. Empiric schemes were classified according to coverage of (i) ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (“meropenem-based”), (ii) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (schemes with an antipseudomonal agent), and (iii) first-line agents not covering ESBL-Enterobacteriaceae nor non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria. Meropenem-based schemes allowed for significantly higher rates of appropriate/adequate therapy (p<0.001). This benefit remained when only patients without risk factors for MDR were considered (p=0.021). In 106 patients (61%) empiric therapy was modified: in 60 cases following initial inappropriate/inadequate therapy, in 46 patients in order to refine empiric therapy. In this study reflecting real-life practice, first-line use of meropenem provided significantly higher rates of the appropriate/adequate therapy, irrespective of presence of risk factors for MDR.
aGeneral Internal Medicine & Infectious Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
bIntensive Care Department, Brugmann University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
cDepartment of Internal Medicine – Intensive Care Unit, CHR St. Joseph-Warquignies, Boussu, Belgium
dIntensive Care Department, CHIREC, Brussels, Belgium
eIntensive Care Department, CHR du Tournaisis, Tournai, Belgium
fIntensive Care Department, Ziekenhuisnetwerk Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 332 62 16.
1 The ANTHICUS Study Investigators are: O. Abid (RHMS, Ath, Belgium), S. Cran (CHIREC, Brussels, Belgium), D. De Bels (CHU Brugmann, Brussels, Belgium), F. De Leener (CHR St. joseph-Warquignies, Boussu, Belgium), L. Finianos (Clinique St. Joseph, Liège, Belgium), F. Forêt (CHR St. Joseph-Warquignies, Mons, Belgium), M. Genard (CIU Ambroise Paré, Mons, Belgium), E. Gilbert (CHR du Tournaisis, Tournai, Belgium), E. Khodadadi (IRIS Sud-Bracops, Brussels, Belgium), S. Machayekhi (CH Hornu Frameries, Hornu), D. Mircev (IRIS Sud-Etterbeek-Ixelles, Brussels, Belgium), D. Neuberg (CH de L’Ardenne, Libramont, Belgium), J.-Y. Piette (CH Bois de l’Abbaye, Seraign, Belgium), P. Serpe (CH ND Bruyères, Chenee, Belgium), F. Beernaert (H. Hart Ziekenhuis, Eeklo, Belgium), K. De Decker (Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium), K. De Ridder (AZ Maria Middelares, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium), C. Declercq (St. Josef Ziekenhuis, Izegem, Belgium), I. Demeyer (OLV Aalst, Aalst, Belgium), B. Nonneman (ASZ, Aalst, Belgium), K. Schoonheydt (ZNA, Antwerp, Belgium, W. Swinnen (AZ St. Blasius, Dendermonde, Belgium), and L. Wosteyn (ASZ, Roeselaere, Belgium).