MacVane Shawn H, Nolte Frederick S
Department of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA Division of Infectious Diseases, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Oct;54(10):2455-63. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00996-16. Epub 2016 Aug 3.
Studies have demonstrated that the combination of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) and rapid organism identification improves outcomes in bloodstream infections (BSI) but have not controlled for the incremental contribution of the individual components. Hospitalized adult patients with blood culture pathogens on a rapid, multiplex PCR-based blood culture identification panel (BCID) that included 19 bacterial species, 5 Candida spp., and 4 antimicrobial resistance genes were studied over sequential time periods in a pre-post quasiexperimental study in 3 groups in the following categories: conventional organism identification (controls), conventional organism identification with ASP (AS), and BCID with ASP (BCID). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups. There were 783 patients with positive blood cultures; of those patients, 364 (115 control, 104 AS, and 145 BCID) met inclusion criteria. The time from blood culture collection to organism identification was shorter in the BCID group (17 h; P < 0.001) than in the control group (57 h) or the AS group (54 h). The BCID group had a shorter time to effective therapy (5 h; P < 0.001) than the control group (15 h) or AS group (13 h). The AS (57%) and BCID (52%) groups had higher rates of antimicrobial de-escalation than the control group (34%), with de-escalation occurring sooner in the BCID group (48 h; P = 0.034) than in the AS group (61 h) or the control group (63 h). No difference between the control group, AS group, and BCID group was seen with respect to mortality, 30-day readmission, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), postculture LOS, or costs. In patients with BSI, ASP alone improved antimicrobial utilization. Addition of BCID to an established ASP shortened the time to effective therapy and further improved antimicrobial use compared to ASP alone, even in a setting of low antimicrobial resistance rates.
研究表明,抗菌药物管理计划(ASP)与快速病原体鉴定相结合可改善血流感染(BSI)的治疗结果,但尚未对各个组成部分的增量贡献进行控制。在一项前后对照的准实验研究中,对连续时间段内住院的成年患者进行了研究,这些患者的血培养病原体通过基于多重PCR的快速血培养鉴定面板(BCID)进行检测,该面板包括19种细菌、5种念珠菌属和4种抗菌耐药基因,分为以下3组:传统病原体鉴定(对照组)、采用ASP的传统病原体鉴定(AS组)和采用BCID的ASP(BCID组)。比较了各组的临床和经济结果。共有783例血培养呈阳性的患者;其中364例(115例对照组、104例AS组和145例BCID组)符合纳入标准。BCID组从血培养采集到病原体鉴定的时间(17小时;P<0.001)比对照组(57小时)或AS组(54小时)短。BCID组达到有效治疗的时间(5小时;P<0.001)比对照组(15小时)或AS组(13小时)短。AS组(57%)和BCID组(52%)的抗菌药物降阶梯率高于对照组(34%),BCID组降阶梯发生的时间(48小时;P=0.034)比AS组(61小时)或对照组(63小时)早。在死亡率、30天再入院率、重症监护病房住院时间(LOS)、血培养后LOS或费用方面,对照组、AS组和BCID组之间未见差异。在BSI患者中,单独使用ASP可改善抗菌药物的使用。与单独使用ASP相比,在已有的ASP基础上增加BCID可缩短达到有效治疗的时间,并进一步改善抗菌药物的使用,即使在抗菌耐药率较低的情况下也是如此。