4.6 Article

Systematic surveillance cultures as a tool to predict involvement of multidrug antibiotic resistant bacteria in ventilator-associated pneumonia

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 675-682

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0953-z

关键词

systematic surveillance cultures; multidrug antibiotic resistance; ventilator-associated pneumonia; early appropriate antibiotic therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess prediction of multidrug resistant (MDR) pathogens in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) by systematic surveillance cultures (SC) and to assess the contribution of SC to initial antibiotic therapy. Design: Prospective cohort study of patients with microbiologically confirmed VAP. Comparison of actual early antibiotic coverage with three hypothetical empirical schemes. Setting: A 50-bed university hospital ICU. SC consisted of oral, nasal, urinary and rectal samples upon admission, 3-weekly urinary and 1-weekly oral, nasal, and rectal samples in all patients, 3-weekly tracheal aspirates in intubated patients. Results: MDR pathogens were found in 86 of 199 VAP episodes. Sensitivity of SC to predict MDR pathogens was 69% (tracheal SC) and 82% (all SC); specificity was 96% (tracheal) and 91% (all), respectively. Appropriate antibiotic coverage within 24h and 48h following MDR VAP was 77% and 89%, respectively. A carbapenem-based empirical scheme would have been equally appropriate (83% vs. 77% at 24h; 83% vs. 89% at 48h), but a beta-lactam-fluoroquinolone empirical therapy would have been less (59% vs. 77% at 24h; 59% vs. 89% at 48h) as would have been beta-lactam-aminoglycoside therapy (68% vs. 77% at 24h; 68% vs. 89% at 48h). Empirical comparators would have resulted in significantly more prescription of broad-spectrum antibiotics within the first 48h. Conclusions: With MDR pathogens highly prevalent, systematic SC predicted MDR pathogens causing VAP in 69% to 82% and may have contributed to high rates of early appropriate antibiotic therapy with limited use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials.

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

4.6
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