Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Medicine Service, Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
JAMA Intern Med. 2024 Jul 1;184(7):769-777. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0581.
Experimental and observational studies have suggested that empirical treatment for bacterial sepsis with antianaerobic antibiotics (eg, piperacillin-tazobactam) is associated with adverse outcomes compared with anaerobe-sparing antibiotics (eg, cefepime). However, a recent pragmatic clinical trial of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime showed no difference in short-term outcomes at 14 days. Further studies are needed to help clarify the empirical use of these agents.
To examine the use of piperacillin-tazobactam compared with cefepime in 90-day mortality in patients treated empirically for sepsis, using instrumental variable analysis of a 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a retrospective cohort study, hospital admissions at the University of Michigan from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, including a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period from June 12, 2015, to September 18, 2016, were examined. Adult patients with suspected sepsis treated with vancomycin and either piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime for conditions with presumed equipoise between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime were included in the study. Data analysis was conducted from December 17, 2022, to April 11, 2023.
The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure-free, ventilator-free, and vasopressor-free days. The 15-month piperacillin-tazobactam shortage period was used as an instrumental variable for unmeasured confounding in antibiotic selection.
Among 7569 patients (4174 men [55%]; median age, 63 [IQR 52-73] years) with sepsis meeting study eligibility, 4523 were treated with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam and 3046 were treated with vancomycin and cefepime. Of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam, only 152 (3%) received it during the shortage. Treatment groups did not differ significantly in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or time to antibiotic administration. In an instrumental variable analysis, piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute mortality increase of 5.0% at 90 days (95% CI, 1.9%-8.1%) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.4-2.7) fewer organ failure-free days, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.57-1.62) fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.01-2.01) fewer vasopressor-free days.
Among patients with suspected sepsis and no clear indication for antianaerobic coverage, administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with higher mortality and increased duration of organ dysfunction compared with cefepime. These findings suggest that the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis may be harmful.
实验和观察研究表明,与保留厌氧菌抗生素(如哌拉西林-他唑巴坦)相比,经验性治疗细菌性败血症使用抗需氧菌抗生素(如哌拉西林-他唑巴坦)与不良结局相关。然而,最近一项关于哌拉西林-他唑巴坦和头孢吡肟的实用临床试验表明,在 14 天时短期结局没有差异。需要进一步研究来帮助澄清这些药物的经验性使用。
使用工具变量分析 15 个月的哌拉西林-他唑巴坦短缺,研究经验性治疗败血症的患者中使用哌拉西林-他唑巴坦与头孢吡肟在 90 天死亡率方面的差异。
设计、设置和参与者:在一项回顾性队列研究中,研究了 2014 年 7 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间密歇根大学的住院患者,包括 2015 年 6 月 12 日至 2016 年 9 月 18 日的哌拉西林-他唑巴坦短缺期间。纳入的患者为疑似败血症,接受万古霉素治疗,并接受哌拉西林-他唑巴坦或头孢吡肟治疗,且病情被认为在哌拉西林-他唑巴坦和头孢吡肟之间具有同等疗效。数据分析于 2022 年 12 月 17 日至 2023 年 4 月 11 日进行。
主要结局为 90 天死亡率。次要结局包括器官衰竭无、呼吸机无和血管加压剂无天数。将 15 个月的哌拉西林-他唑巴坦短缺期用作抗生素选择中未测量混杂因素的工具变量。
在符合研究条件的 7569 名败血症患者中(4174 名男性[55%];中位年龄,63 [IQR,52-73] 岁),4523 名接受万古霉素和哌拉西林-他唑巴坦治疗,3046 名接受万古霉素和头孢吡肟治疗。接受哌拉西林-他唑巴坦治疗的患者中,只有 152 人(3%)在短缺期间接受了该药物。治疗组在年龄、Charlson 合并症指数评分、序贯器官衰竭评估评分或抗生素给药时间方面无显著差异。在工具变量分析中,哌拉西林-他唑巴坦治疗与 90 天死亡率绝对增加 5.0%(95%CI,1.9%-8.1%)相关,无器官衰竭天数减少 2.1(95%CI,1.4-2.7),无呼吸机天数减少 1.1(95%CI,0.57-1.62),无血管加压剂天数减少 1.5(95%CI,1.01-2.01)。
在疑似败血症且无明确厌氧菌覆盖指征的患者中,与头孢吡肟相比,使用哌拉西林-他唑巴坦与死亡率升高和器官功能障碍持续时间延长相关。这些发现表明,在败血症中广泛使用经验性抗需氧菌抗生素可能是有害的。