Department of Pharmacy, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, United States of America.
James R. & Helen D. Russell Center for Research & Innovation, Advocate Health Care, Park Ridge, IL, United States of America.
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Jun;38(6):1153-1158. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158403. Epub 2019 Aug 22.
Traditional antibiograms use local resistance patterns and susceptibility data to guide empiric antimicrobial therapy selection. However, antibiograms are rarely unit-specific and do not account for patient-specific risk factors.
This retrospective, single-center descriptive study used culture and susceptibility data from January 1 to December 31, 2016 to develop an Emergency Department (ED)-specific antibiogram and compare the antimicrobial susceptibilities of the most commonly identified organisms to the hospital antibiogram. All ED isolates were further stratified by the following risk factors that may influence antimicrobial susceptibility: age, disposition from ED, previous antimicrobial use and/or hospitalization within 30 days, and presenting location (i.e. healthcare facility residence versus community).
A total of 2158 isolates from the ED were included: Escherichia coli (n = 1244), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 232), Proteus mirabilis (n = 131), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 103), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 303), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 145). There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram (n = 5739) with the exception of Escherichia coli. The hospital antibiogram overestimated Escherichia coli resistance rates for cefazolin (20% vs 15.6%, p = 0.049), ceftriaxone (9.6% vs 6.4%, p < 0.033), and ciprofloxacin (23.7% vs 15.4%, p < 0.006). There were significantly more risk factors present in patients admitted versus discharged from the ED (p < 0.001). Healthcare facility residence had the greatest influence on susceptibility, especially Escherichia coli (81.8% vs 34.9%, p < 0.001) and Proteus mirabilis (75.3% vs 33%, p < 0.001) ciprofloxacin susceptibility.
There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram with the exception of Escherichia coli. However, development of an ED-specific antibiogram can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate empiric therapy when risk factors are included.
传统的抗生素药敏谱使用当地的耐药模式和药敏数据来指导经验性抗菌治疗药物的选择。然而,抗生素药敏谱很少具有特定的单位特异性,并且不考虑患者的特定危险因素。
这项回顾性的单中心描述性研究使用 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日的培养和药敏数据,制定了一个急诊(ED)特定的抗生素药敏谱,并比较了最常见的病原体的抗菌药物敏感性与医院抗生素药敏谱。所有 ED 分离株还根据可能影响抗菌药物敏感性的以下危险因素进一步分层:年龄、ED 处置、先前使用抗菌药物和/或 30 天内住院、以及就诊地点(即医疗机构居住与社区)。
共纳入 2158 例 ED 分离株:大肠埃希菌(n=1244)、肺炎克雷伯菌(n=232)、奇异变形杆菌(n=131)、铜绿假单胞菌(n=103)、金黄色葡萄球菌(n=303)和粪肠球菌(n=145)。ED 和医院抗生素药敏谱(n=5739)之间除了大肠埃希菌没有统计学上的显著差异。与医院抗生素药敏谱相比,大肠埃希菌对头孢唑啉(20%比 15.6%,p=0.049)、头孢曲松(9.6%比 6.4%,p<0.033)和环丙沙星(23.7%比 15.4%,p<0.006)的耐药率估计过高。在从 ED 出院和入院的患者中,存在更多的危险因素(p<0.001)。医疗机构居住对敏感性的影响最大,特别是大肠埃希菌(81.8%比 34.9%,p<0.001)和奇异变形杆菌(75.3%比 33%,p<0.001)对环丙沙星的敏感性。
ED 和医院抗生素药敏谱之间没有统计学上的显著差异,除了大肠埃希菌。然而,当考虑到危险因素时,制定 ED 特定的抗生素药敏谱可以帮助医生开出合适的经验性治疗药物。