4.2 Article

Evaluation of initial antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and role of an antibiotic management team for antibiotic stewardship

期刊

MEDECINE ET MALADIES INFECTIEUSES
卷 40, 期 11, 页码 637-643

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.medmal.2010.06.002

关键词

Bloodstream infection; Antibiotics; Antibiotic management teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. - Antibiotic management teams (AMTs) are recommended, but they are rarely implemented in France and their activity seldom evaluated. Objective. - The study was made to evaluate the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy (AT) for bloodstream infections (BSI) and to assess the role of an AMT for improving AT in a 950-bed teaching hospital. Methods. - A prospective analysis was made of all significant BSIs outside ICU in 2008. AT was assessed by the AMT and change was suggested if deemed necessary: effective if at least one prescribed antibiotic was effective in vitro, and appropriate if consistent with local recommendations. Results. - Of 875 +BCs, 560 were significant, 383 were outside ICU and 344 could be evaluated (170 community-acquired, 124 nosocomial, and 50 healthcare-associated [HCA]). The clinical ward has already initiated an effective and appropriate AT in 128 (37%), inappropriate but effective in 104 (30%), and ineffective or absent in 112 (33%) BSIs. The only independent variable associated with ineffective/absent AT was nosocomial and/or HCA BSI (aOR: 2.71; 95%Cl: 1.72-4.27; p<0.001). A recommendation was given and followed in 177/190 (93%) BSIs requiring an intervention. The AMT intervened on the day of the +BC in 256 (84%) cases, the day before the +BC in 12 (4%) cases, and one day later or more in 37 (12%) BSI cases. Conclusion. - Two third of BSIs were not initially treated by appropriate AT, more often in nosocomial BSI. Recommendation provided by the AMT was followed in 93% of cases. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.2
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