Antibiotic therapy in the critically ill - expert opinion of the Intensive Care Medicine Scientific Subcommittee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology

Antibiotic Exposure of Critically Ill Children at a Tertiary Care Paediatric Intensive Care Unit in Switzerland

Antibiotic overtreatment fosters multidrug-resistance that threatens healthcare systems worldwide as it increases patient morbidity and mortality. Contemporary data on antibiotic usage on tertiary care paediatric intensive care units for in- and external benchmarking are scarce. This was a single-centre retrospective quality control study including all patients with antibiotic treatment during their hospitalization at a paediatric intensive care unit in the time period 2019-2021. Antibiotic treatment was calculated as days of therapy (DOT) per 100 patient days (DOT/100pd). Further, the variables PIM II score, length of stay in intensive care (LOS), gender, age, treatment year, reason for intensive care unit admission, and death were assessed. Two thousand and forty-one cases with a median age of 10 months [IQR 0-64] were included; 53.4% were male, and 4.5% of the included patients died. Median LOS was 2.73 days [0.07-5.90], and PIM II score was 1.98% [0.02-4.86]. Overall, the antibiotic exposure of critically ill children and adolescents was 59.8 DOT/100pd. During the study period, the antibiotic usage continuously increased (2019: 55.2 DOT/100pd; 2020: 59.8 DOT/100pd (+8.2%); 2021: 64.5 DOT/100pd (+8.0%)). The highest antibiotic exposure was found in the youngest patients (0-1 month old (72.7 DOT/100pd)), in patients who had a LOS of >2-7 days (65.1 DOT/100pd), those who had a renal diagnosis (98 DOT/100pd), and in case of death (91.5 DOT/100pd). Critically ill paediatric patients were moderately exposed to antibiotics compared to data from the previously published literature. The current underreporting of antimicrobial prescription data in this cohort calls for future studies for better internal and external benchmarking.

A comparative study on the use of procalcitonin to distinguish between central fever and infectious causes of fever

Introduction

central fever is defined as elevated body temperature without any evidence of infection or drug reaction fever, and currently it has no definitive diagnostic criteria. The current study aims to assess the role of procalcitonin (PCT) in differentiating central fever from fever secondary to infections in patients with neurological insults.

Methods

we conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted with a neurological insult (brain trauma, brain tumors and cerebrovascular accidents) in a tertiary care hospital. All patients who developed fever 48 hours after admission and had procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) done as part of fever evaluation were assessed to include in the study.

Results

out of 70 patients who met inclusion criteria, 37 had infections identified and 33 had no source of infection. The mean age was 42.9 years (± 18) in the infectious group while 40.3 years (± 18.2) in the central fever group and there was male predominance in both groups. In the infectious group there were 25(67.6%) males vs. 12(32.4%) females while in non -infectious group, males vs. females were 18(54.5%) vs. 15(45.5%) and there was no difference in both group (p-value 0.26) Median procalcitonin (PCT) value was 0.09 ng/dl (IQR 0.05- 0.19) in patients with no identified cause of infection and 1.4 ng/dl (IQR 0.5-5.1) in patients with infections with a p-value of <0.001. Although CRP and ESR were low in patients with central fever as compared to those with infections, these differences did not reach statistical significance with p-value of CRP 0.18 and p-value of ESR 0.31 between two groups.

Conclusion

PCT levels were low in patients with central fever and may be considered as a useful biomarker to differentiate between infectious fever from non-infectious fever in patients with brain injury. This can prevent unnecessary antibiotic use in patients without infection.

The ICU-CARB score: a novel clinical scoring system to predict carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria carriage in critically ill patients upon ICU admission

BACKGROUND

With the widespread spread of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB) in medical facilities, the carriage of CR-GNB among critically ill patients has become a significant concern in intensive care units (ICU). This study aimed to develop a scoring system to identify CR-GNB carriers upon ICU admission.

METHODS

Consecutive critically ill patients admitted to the ICU of Shanghai Ruijin Hospital between January 2017 and December 2020 were included. The patients were then divided into training and testing datasets at a 7:3 ratio. Parameters associated with CR-GNB carriage were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Each parameter was assigned a numerical score ranging from 0 to 100 using logistic regression analysis. Subsequently, a four-tier risk-level system was developed based on the cumulative scores, and assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Of the 1736 patients included in this study, the prevalence of CR-GNB carriage was 10.60%. The clinical scoring system including seven variables (neurological disease, high-risk department history, length of stay ≥ 14 days, ICU history, invasive mechanical ventilation, gastrointestinal tube placement, and carbapenem usage) exhibited promising predictive capabilities. Patients were then stratified using the scoring system, resulting in CR-GNB carriage rates of 2.4%, 12.0%, 36.1%, and 57.9% at the respective risk levels (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the AUC of the developed model in the training set was calculated to be 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86), while internal validation yielded an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The ICU-CARB Score serves as a straightforward and precise tool that enables prompt evaluation of the risk of CR-GNB carriage at the time of ICU admission, thereby facilitating the timely implementation of targeted pre-emptive isolation.

Barriers to Adherence to Antimicrobial Stewardship Postprescription Review and Feedback For Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Agents: A Nested Case-Control Study

Background

Postprescription review and feedback (PPRF) is one of the most common strategies in antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) intervention. However, disagreements between the prescribers and ASP personnel can occur. The aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with nonadherence to PPRF intervention.

Methods

The present retrospective nested case-control study was performed at a tertiary care center, which has been conducting a once-weekly PPRF for carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam since 2014. Nonadherence to ASP recommendations was defined as the failure of the primary care team to modify or stop antimicrobial therapy 72 hours after the issuance of PPRF recommendations. Factors associated with nonadherence to PPRF intervention were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

In total, 2466 instances of PPRF in 1714 cases between April 2014 and September 2019 were found. The nonadherence rate was 5.9%, and 44 cases were found in which carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam continued to be used against PPRF recommendations. Factors associated with nonadherence to PPRF recommendations were a previous history of hospitalization within 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-5.81) and a rapidly fatal McCabe score at the time of PPRF intervention (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.18-6.98). A review of the narrative comments in the electronic medical records indicated that common reasons for nonadherence were "the patient was sick" (n = 12; 27.3%) and "the antimicrobial seemed to be clinically effective" (n = 9; 20.5%).

Conclusions

Nonadherence to PPRF recommendations was relatively uncommon at the study institution. However, patients with a severe disease condition frequently continued to receive broad-spectrum antimicrobials against PPRF recommendations. Understanding physicians' cognitive process in nonadherence to ASP recommendations and ASP interventions targeting medical subspecialties caring for severely ill patients is needed to improve ASP.

Control of Gram-negative multi-drug resistant microorganisms in an Italian ICU: Rapid decline as a result of a multifaceted intervention, including conservative use of antibiotics

BACKGROUND

Gram-negative Multi-Drug-Resistant Organisms (GNMDROs) cause an increasing burden of disease in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). We deployed a multifaceted intervention to control selection and transmission of GNMDROs and to estimate at which rate GNMDROs would decline with our interventional bundle.

METHODS

Interventions implemented in 2015: in-ward Antimicrobial-Stewardship-Program for appropriate management of antimicrobial prescription; infection monitoring with nasal/rectal swabs and repeated procalcitonin assays; 24 h microbiological support (since 2016); prevention of catheter-related infections, VAPs and in-ward GNMDROs transmission; education of ICU personnel. In May 2017, epidemiological, clinical and microbiological data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Rates of resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii, as well as percentages of resistance among all Gram-negative bacteria were compared during the study period.

RESULTS

Of 668 patients, at least one isolate was obtained from 399 patients. The proportions of patients with infection and with Gram-negative isolates were even across the 5 semesters (p = 0.8). For Klebsiella pneumoniae, the number of strains resistant to carbapenems fell from 94% to 6% (p < 0.001). Significant drops were also observed for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Percentages of resistance for all Gram-negative isolates fell from 91% to 13% (p < 0.0001). The reduction in antibiotic prescription translated in a considerable reduction of pharmacy costs. Multivariate models confirmed that the hospitalization semester was the most relevant independent predictor of resistance among Gram-negative bacteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience provides further evidence that a multi-faceted intervention, aimed to reduce selection and transmission of GNMDROs with efficient microbiological support, may yield remarkable results in a short time interval.

When not to start antibiotics: avoiding antibiotic overuse in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Most intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive broad-spectrum antibiotics. While lifesaving in some, in others these treatments may be unnecessary and place patients at risk of antibiotic-associated harms.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature exploring how we diagnose infection in patients in the ICU and address the safety and utility of a 'watchful waiting' approach to antibiotic initiation with selected patients in the ICU.

SOURCES

A semi-structured search of PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for articles published in English during the past 15 years was conducted.

CONTENT

Distinguishing infection from non-infectious mimics in ICU patients is uniquely challenging. At present, we do not have access to a rapid point-of-care test that reliably differentiates between individuals who need antibiotics and those who do not. A small number of studies have attempted to compare early aggressive versus conservative antimicrobial strategies in the ICU. However, this body of literature is small and not robust enough to guide practice.

IMPLICATIONS

This issue will not likely be resolved until there are diagnostic tests that rapidly and reliably identify the presence or absence of infection in the ICU population. In the meantime, prospective trials that identify clinical situations wherein it is safe to delay or withhold antibiotic initiation in the ICU until the presence of an infection is proven are warranted.

Early use of polymyxin B reduces the mortality of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection

Polymyxin B is one of the last resort option for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) bloodstream infection in China. Therefore, the timing of administration of polymyxin is frequently delayed. We collected 40 cases of CRKP bloodstream infections (BSIs) treated with combinations based on polymyxin B over 30 months. The primary outcome, 30-day mortality rate, was 52.5% (21/40). Early administration of polymyxin B is meant to administer the drug within 48 h of diagnosing bacteremia. Delayed administration was considered when polymyxin B was administered after 48 h of bacteremia onset. Polymyxin B duration and total dosages were similar in the two groups (11.57 days versus 11.76 days, p = 0.919; 1306.52 mg versus 1247.06 mg, p = 0.711). Compared with delayed administration, early use of polymyxin B-based combination therapy had a significant increase in the rate of bacterial clearance (65.22% versus 29.41%, p = 0.025; OR = 0.533) and decreased 30-day mortality (39.13% versus 70.59%, p = 0.045; OR = 0.461) and overall mortality (43.48% versus 82.35%, p = 0.022; OR = 0.321).

Efficacy and safety of antimicrobial de-escalation as a clinical strategy

INTRODUCTION

De-escalation is a widely recommended strategy in regard to guidelines, with an associated adherence to guidelines being around 50%. This review discusses data supporting de-escalation and possible obstacles for its implementation. Areas covered: Although it does not have a consensual definition, de-escalation consists of reducing the spectrum of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on the microbiological findings. Many observational studies have suggested that this strategy is likely safe and efficient for treating various types of infection. However, randomized controlled trials published as of now have not shown any improvement on the outcomes. Regarding the adverse effects of de-escalation on ecological pressure and multidrug resistance emergence, the data are contradictory. The implementation of new techniques, such as rapid diagnosis, can help guide clinicians. Expert opinion: De-escalation should be included as part of a large antibiotic stewardship program to balance the risk and benefit of each administration, and each physician prescribing antibiotics should be challenged for the quality of her/his prescription on a daily basis. In the future, one of our duties will involve determining whether a delay of antimicrobial treatment - making it possible to improve diagnostic performance and obtain the first laboratory results - is either safe or unsafe for our patients.