4.7 Review

Antimicrobial Stewardship and Intensive Care Unit Mortality: A Systematic Review

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 748-756

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy550

关键词

antimicrobial stewardship program; intensive care unit; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) using audit and feedback in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting can reduce harms related to inappropriate antibiotic use. However, inappropriate discontinuation or narrowing of antibiotic treatment could increase infection-related mortality in this population. Individual ASP studies are underpowered to detect differences in mortality. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of audit and feedback in the ICU setting, using mortality as our outcome. Results. Of 2447 citations, 11 studies met our inclusion criteria. Although a variety of study designs were used to assess reductions in antibiotic use, mortality was analyzed using an uncontrolled before-after study design in all studies. Five studies directed audit and feedback to all or most ICU patients receiving antibiotics and measured overall ICU mortality. In the meta-analysis of these studies, the pooled relative risk of ICU mortality was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, .93-1.14). A second meta-analysis of 3 smaller studies that evaluated mortality only in patients directly assessed by the ASP found a pooled relative risk of ICU mortality of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, .80 to 1.4). Three studies were not appropriate for meta-analysis, but their results were consistent with our overall findings. Conclusions. Our systematic review did not identify a change in mortality associated with antimicrobial stewardship using audit and feedback in the ICU setting. These results increase our confidence that audit and feedback can be safely implemented in this setting. Future studies should report standardized estimates of mortality and use more robust study designs to assess mortality, when feasible.

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