Suppr超能文献

首次发生非重症感染时治疗时间对老年患者的影响:我们治疗的等待时间是否过长?

Impact of time to treatment in first occurrence, non-severe infection for elderly patients: are we waiting too long to treat?

作者信息

Vandervelde Rhett, Mlynarek Mark E, Ramesh Mayur, Patel Nimish, Veve Michael P, August Benjamin A

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.

Department of Infectious Diseases, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.

出版信息

Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2024 Apr 24;4(1):e59. doi: 10.1017/ash.2024.46. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Data evaluating timeliness of antibiotic therapy in infections (CDI) are not well established. The study's purpose was to evaluate the impact of time-to-CDI treatment on disease progression.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed among hospitalized patients with CDI from 1/2018 to 2/2022. Inclusion criteria were age ≥65 years, first occurrence, non-severe CDI at symptom onset, and CDI treatment for ≥72 hours. Cases included patients who progressed to severe or fulminant CDI; controls were patients without CDI progression. Time to CDI treatment was evaluated in three ways: a classification and regression tree (CART)-defined threshold, time as a continuous variable, and time as a categorical variable.

RESULTS

272 patients were included; 136 with CDI progression, 136 patients without. The median (IQR) age was 74 (69-81) years, 167 (61%) were women, and 108 (40%) were immunosuppressed. CDI progression patients more commonly were toxin positive (66 [49%] vs 52 [38%], = .087) with hospital-acquired disease (57 [42%] vs 29 [21%], < 0.001). A CART-derived breakpoint for optimal time-to-CDI treatment of 64 hours established early (184, 68%) and delayed treatment (88, 32%). When accounting for confounding variables, delayed CDI treatment was associated with disease progression (adjOR, 4.6; 95%CI, 2.6-8.2); this was observed regardless of how time-to-CDI-active therapy was evaluated (continuous adjOR, 1.02; categorical adjOR, 2.11).

CONCLUSION

Delayed CDI treatment was associated with disease progression and could represent an important antimicrobial stewardship measure with future evaluation.

摘要

目的

评估艰难梭菌感染(CDI)中抗生素治疗及时性的数据尚不充分。本研究的目的是评估CDI治疗时间对疾病进展的影响。

方法

对2018年1月至2022年2月期间住院的CDI患者进行病例对照研究。纳入标准为年龄≥65岁、首次发病、症状发作时为非重度CDI且CDI治疗时间≥72小时。病例包括进展为重度或暴发性CDI的患者;对照为未发生CDI进展的患者。CDI治疗时间通过三种方式进行评估:分类回归树(CART)定义的阈值、时间作为连续变量以及时间作为分类变量。

结果

共纳入272例患者;136例发生CDI进展,136例未发生。中位(IQR)年龄为74(69 - 81)岁,167例(61%)为女性,108例(40%)有免疫抑制。CDI进展患者毒素阳性更为常见(66例[49%]对52例[38%],P = 0.087),医院获得性疾病更多见(57例[42%]对29例[21%],P < 0.001)。CART得出的CDI最佳治疗时间断点为64小时,据此分为早期治疗组(184例,68%)和延迟治疗组(88例,32%)。在考虑混杂变量后,延迟的CDI治疗与疾病进展相关(校正比值比,4.6;95%可信区间,2.6 - 8.2);无论如何评估CDI活性治疗时间,均观察到这一结果(连续变量校正比值比,1.02;分类变量校正比值比,2.11)。

结论

延迟的CDI治疗与疾病进展相关,可能是一项未来需评估的重要抗菌药物管理措施。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

6
Propensity-Matched Cost of Infection Overdiagnosis.倾向匹配的感染过度诊断成本。
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 21;8(2):ofaa630. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa630. eCollection 2021 Feb.
7
Navigating changes in prevention and treatment.应对预防和治疗中的变化。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020 Dec;26(12-a Suppl):S3-S23. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.12-a.s3.
8
Hospital Infection Control: .医院感染控制:
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020 Mar;33(2):98-108. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701234. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
10
Clostridium difficile infection: review.艰难梭菌感染:综述。
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Jul;38(7):1211-1221. doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03539-6. Epub 2019 Apr 3.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验