4.7 Article

Assessing antimicrobial stewardship initiatives: Clinical evaluation of cefepime or piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with bloodstream infections secondary to AmpC-producing organisms

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.08.007

关键词

AmpC; Cefepime; Piperacillin/tazobactam; Carbapenem-sparing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of micro-organisms harbouring AmpC beta-lactamases remains challenging. Carbapenems are often considered first-line agents. Due to growing concern regarding carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, integrating non-carbapenem treatment strategies is being explored for these pathogens. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with bacteraemia secondary to AmpC-producing organisms treated with cefepime or piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP). A retrospective study of adult patients receiving cefepime or TZP for the treatment of AmpC -producing organisms with positive cefoxitin screen (i.e. Citrobacter, Enterobacter or Serratia spp. along with cefoxitin resistance) isolated from blood cultures was conducted. The primary endpoint was clinical cure at end of therapy (EOT). Secondary endpoints included microbiological eradication, frequency of susceptibility changes following treatment, and 7- and 30-day all-cause mortality. Clinical cure at EOT was 87.1%, with 93.2% of patients achieving microbiological eradication. The 7- and 30-day mortality rates were 3.8% and 10.6%, respectively. Organism susceptibility was exceptionally high, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of <= 2 mu g/mL in 90% of patients treated with cefepime (n= 108). Selection for resistance to third-generation cephalosporins or primary antimicrobial therapy was infrequent at 6.1% (8/132). In conclusion, use of cefepime or TZP for management of AmpC bloodstream infections was associated with clinical and microbiological cure with infrequent selection for resistance. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据