We have located links that may give you full text access.
Use of non-carbapenem antibiotics to treat severe extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae infections in intensive care unit patients.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of non-carbapenem antibiotics to treat severe extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study conducted in two ICUs compared the outcomes of patients with ESBL-E infections administered a carbapenem or a non-carbapenem antibiotic as their definitive treatment. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 30 days, a composite endpoint of ESBL-E infection recurrence and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates, ESBL-E infection recurrence and infection(s) due to other pathogen(s).
RESULTS: Among 107 patients included in the study, 67 received a carbapenem and 40 received a non-carbapenem antibiotic as their definitive treatment. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. Comparing patients given a non-carbapenem antibiotic with those administered a carbapenem, they had similar 30-day treatment failure (43% vs. 61%, respectively; P = 0.06) and ESBL-E infection recurrence rates (25% vs. 22%; P = 0.8), but the former had lower 30-day mortality (23% vs. 45%; P = 0.02) and in-hospital mortality rates (23% vs. 49%; P = 0.005). Secondary infection rates caused by other pathogen(s), including Clostridium difficile, were comparable. Outcomes were comparable regardless of whether or not patients received an empirical carbapenem.
CONCLUSION: For ICU patients with severe ESBL-E infections, treatment with a non-carbapenem antibiotic was not associated with poorer outcomes compared with a carbapenem antibiotic.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study conducted in two ICUs compared the outcomes of patients with ESBL-E infections administered a carbapenem or a non-carbapenem antibiotic as their definitive treatment. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 30 days, a composite endpoint of ESBL-E infection recurrence and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates, ESBL-E infection recurrence and infection(s) due to other pathogen(s).
RESULTS: Among 107 patients included in the study, 67 received a carbapenem and 40 received a non-carbapenem antibiotic as their definitive treatment. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. Comparing patients given a non-carbapenem antibiotic with those administered a carbapenem, they had similar 30-day treatment failure (43% vs. 61%, respectively; P = 0.06) and ESBL-E infection recurrence rates (25% vs. 22%; P = 0.8), but the former had lower 30-day mortality (23% vs. 45%; P = 0.02) and in-hospital mortality rates (23% vs. 49%; P = 0.005). Secondary infection rates caused by other pathogen(s), including Clostridium difficile, were comparable. Outcomes were comparable regardless of whether or not patients received an empirical carbapenem.
CONCLUSION: For ICU patients with severe ESBL-E infections, treatment with a non-carbapenem antibiotic was not associated with poorer outcomes compared with a carbapenem antibiotic.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app