Factors influencing the implementation of antibiotic de-escalation and impact of this strategy in critically ill patients

Antimicrobial De-Escalation in Critically Ill Patients

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is defined as the discontinuation of one or more antimicrobials in empirical therapy, or the replacement of a broad-spectrum antimicrobial with a narrower-spectrum antimicrobial. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the available literature on the effectiveness and safety of ADE in critically ill patients, with a focus on special conditions such as anti-fungal therapy and high-risk categories. Although it is widely considered a safe strategy for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), to date, there has been no assessment of the effect of de-escalation on the development of resistance. Conversely, some authors suggest that prolonged antibiotic treatment may be a side effect of de-escalation, especially in high-risk categories such as neutropenic critically ill patients and intra-abdominal infections (IAIs). Moreover, microbiological documentation is crucial for increasing ADE rates in critically ill patients with infections, and efforts should be focused on exploring new diagnostic tools to accelerate pathogen identification. For these reasons, ADE can be safely used in patients with infections, as confirmed by high-quality and reliable microbiological samplings, although further studies are warranted to clarify its applicability in selected populations.

Clinical impacts of the rapid diagnostic method on positive blood cultures

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of short-term incubation (STI) protocol on clinical outcomes of bloodstream infection (BSI) patients.

METHODS

A total of 1363 positive blood culture records from January 2019 to December 2021 were included. The main clinical outcomes included pathogen identification turnaround time (TAT), antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) TAT, and length of total hospital stay.

RESULTS

The TAT of pathogen identification and AST significantly decreased after implementing the STI protocol (2.2 vs 1.4 days and 3.4 vs 2.5 days, respectively, with P < .001 for both). Moreover, for patients with Gram-negative bacteria (GNB)-infected BSIs, the length of total hospital stay decreased from 31.9 days to 27.1 days, indicating that these patients could be discharged 5 days earlier after implementing the STI protocol (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

The protocol led to a significant reduction in TAT and improved clinical outcomes, particularly for GNB organisms. The findings suggest that the STI protocol can improve patient outcomes and hospital resource utilization in the management of BSIs.

Antibiotics use patterns in end-of-life cancer patients and medical staff's perception of antimicrobial stewardship programs

BACKGROUND/AIMS

While most cancer patients with end-of-life (EOL) care receive antibiotic treatments, antibiotic use should be decided appropriately considering the benefits, side effects, resistance, and cost effects. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) are important for patients with EOL care, but there is limited study analyzing actual antibiotic use in EOL care and the perceptions of Korean medical staff.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of 149 deceased cancer patients hospitalized in the medical hospitalist units at Asan Medical Center in Seoul from May 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. Basic information, antibiotic use, duration, and changes were investigated. We surveyed medical staff's perceptions of antibiotics in cancer patients with EOL.

RESULTS

Of the 149 cancer patients with EOL care, 146 (98.0%) agreed with physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST). In total, 143 (95.9%) received antibiotics, 110 (76.9%) received combination antibiotic treatment, and 116 (81.1%) were given antibiotics until the day of death. In a survey of 60 medical staff, 42 (70.0%) did not know about ASP, and 24 (40.0%) thought ASP was important in EOL care. Nineteen doctors (31.7%) discussed the use or discontinuation of antibiotics with patients or caregivers when writing POLST, but only 8 patients (5.6%) stopped antibiotics after POLST.

CONCLUSION

Most cancer patients with EOL care continue to receive antibiotics until just before their death. A careful approach is needed, considering the benefits and side effects of antibiotic use, and the patient's right to self-decision. It is necessary to actively improve awareness of ASP and its importance for medical staff.

Antibiotic prescribing behavior among physicians in Asia: a multinational survey

Objective

To evaluate antibiotic prescribing behavior (APB) among physicians with various specialties in five Asian countries.

Design

Survey of antibiotics prescribing behavior in three stages (initial, on-treatment, and de-escalation stages).

Methods

Participants included internists, infectious diseases (ID) specialists, hematologists, intensivists, and surgeons. Participants' characteristics, patterns of APB, and perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship were collected. A multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate factors associated with appropriate APB.

Results

There were 367 participants. The survey response rate was 82.5% (367/445). For the initial stage, different specialties had different choices for empiric treatment. For the on-treatment stage, if the patient does not respond to empiric treatment, most respondents will step up to broader-spectrum antibiotics (273/367: 74.39%). For the de-escalation stage, the rate of de-escalation was 10%-60% depending on the specialty. Most respondents would de-escalate antibiotics based on guidelines (250/367: 68.12%). De-escalation was mostly reported by ID specialists (66/106: 62.26%). Respondents who reported that they performed laboratory investigations prior to empirical antibiotic prescriptions (aOR = 2.83) were associated with appropriate use, while respondents who reported ID consultation were associated with appropriate antibiotic management for infections not responding to empiric treatment (aOR = 40.87); adherence with national guidelines (aOR = 2.57) was associated with reported successful carbapenem de-escalation.

Conclusion

This study highlights the variation in practices and gaps in appropriate APB on three stages of antibiotic prescription among different specialties. Education on appropriate investigation, partnership with ID specialist, and availability and adherence with national guidelines are critical to help guide appropriate APB among different specialties.

Clinical, contextual and hospital-level factors associated with escalation and de-escalation of empiric Gram-negative antibiotics among US inpatients

Background

Empiric Gram-negative antibiotics are frequently changed in response to new information. To inform antibiotic stewardship, we sought to identify predictors of antibiotic changes using information knowable before microbiological test results.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study. Survival-time models were used to evaluate clinical factors associated with antibiotic escalation and de-escalation (defined as an increase or decrease, respectively, in the spectrum or number of Gram-negative antibiotics within 5 days of initiation). Spectrum was categorized as narrow, broad, extended or protected. Tjur's D statistic was used to estimate the discriminatory power of groups of variables.

Results

In 2019, 2 751 969 patients received empiric Gram-negative antibiotics at 920 study hospitals. Antibiotic escalation occurred in 6.5%, and 49.2% underwent de-escalation; 8.8% were changed to an equivalent regimen. Escalation was more likely when empiric antibiotics were narrow-spectrum (HR 19.0 relative to protected; 95% CI: 17.9-20.1), broad-spectrum (HR 10.3; 95% CI: 9.78-10.9) or extended-spectrum (HR 3.49; 95% CI: 3.30-3.69). Patients with sepsis present on admission (HR 1.94; 95% CI: 1.91-1.96) and urinary tract infection present on admission (HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.35-1.38) were more likely to undergo antibiotic escalation than patients without these syndromes. De-escalation was more likely with combination therapy (HR 2.62 per additional agent; 95% CI: 2.61-2.63) or narrow-spectrum empiric antibiotics (HR 1.67 relative to protected; 95% CI: 1.65-1.69). Choice of empiric regimen accounted for 51% and 74% of the explained variation in antibiotic escalation and de-escalation, respectively.

Conclusions

Empiric Gram-negative antibiotics are frequently de-escalated early in hospitalization, whereas escalation is infrequent. Changes are primarily driven by choice of empiric therapy and presence of infectious syndromes.

Impact of Positive Culture Reports of E. coli or MSSA on De-Escalation of Antibiotic Use in a Teaching Hospital in Pakistan and the Implications

Background

Antibiotic de-escalation is a key element of antimicrobial stewardship programs that restrict the spread and emergence of resistance. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of positive culture sensitivity reports of E. coli or Methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) on de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.

Methods

This prospective observational study was performed on 256 infected patients. The samples were obtained principally from the pus of infected sites for the identification of pathogens and culture-sensitivity testing. The data were collected from patient medical files, which included their demographic data, sample type, causative microbe and antimicrobial treatment as empiric or definitive treatment based on cultures. Data were analyzed using SPSS.

Results

Of 256 isolated microbes, 138 (53.9%) were MSSA and 118 were E. coli (46.1%). MSSA showed 100% sensitivity to cefoxitin, oxacillin, vancomycin, fosfomycin, colistin and more than 90% to linezolid (95.3%), tigecycline (93.1%), chloramphenicol (92.2%) and amikacin (90.2%). E. coli showed 100% sensitivity to only fosfomycin and more than 90% to colistin (96.7%), polymyxin-B (95.1%) and tigecycline (92.9%). The high use of cefoperazone+sulbactam (151), amikacin (149), ceftriaxone (33), metronidazole (30) and piperacillin + tazobactam (22) was seen with empiric prescribing. Following susceptibility testing, the most common antibiotics prescribed for E. coli were meropenem IV (34), amikacin (34), ciprofloxacin (29) and cefoperazone+sulbactam (25). For MSSA cases, linezolid (48), clindamycin (30), cefoperazone+ sulbactam IV (16) and amikacin (15) was used commonly. Overall, there was 23% reduction in antibiotic use in case of E. coli and 43% reduction in MSSA cases.

Conclusion

Culture sensitivity reports helped in the de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy, reducing the prescribing of especially broad-spectrum antibiotics. Consequently, it is recommended that local hospital guidelines be developed based on local antimicrobial susceptibility patterns while preventing the unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for empiric treatment.

How to use new antibiotics in the therapy of ventilator-associated pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common nosocomial infection in critically ill patients requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Recently, the emergence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species, has complicated the selection of appropriate antimicrobials and contributed to treatment failure. Although novel antimicrobials are crucial to treating VAP caused by these multidrug-resistant organisms, knowledge of how to optimize their efficacy while minimizing the development of resistance should be a requirement for their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have assessed the efficacy of novel antimicrobials against multidrug-resistant organisms, but high-quality studies focusing on optimal dosing, infusion time and duration of therapy in patients with VAP are still lacking. Antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship should be combined to optimize the use of these novel agents.

SUMMARY

Improvements in diagnostic tests, stewardship practices and a better understanding of dosing, infusion time, duration of treatment and the effects of combining various antimicrobials should help optimize the use of novel antimicrobials for VAP and maximize clinical outcomes while minimizing the development of resistance.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Program: Reducing Antibiotic's Spectrum of Activity Is not the Solution to Limit the Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria

Overconsumption of antibiotics in hospitals has led to policy implementation, including the control of antibiotic prescriptions. The impact of these policies on the evolution of antimicrobial resistance remains uncertain. In this work, we review the possible limits of such policies and focus on the need for a more efficient approach. Establishing a causal relationship between the introduction of new antibiotics and the emergence of new resistance mechanisms is difficult. Several studies have demonstrated that many resistance mechanisms existed before the discovery of antibiotics. Overconsumption of antibiotics has worsened the phenomenon of resistance. Antibiotics are responsible for intestinal dysbiosis, which is suspected of being the source of bacterial resistance. The complexity of the intestinal microbiota composition, the impact of the pharmacokinetic properties of antibiotics, and the multiplicity of other factors involved in the acquisition and emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms, lead us to think that de-escalation, in the absence of studies proving its effectiveness, is not the solution to limiting the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. More studies are needed to clarify the ecological risk caused by different antibiotic classes. In the meantime, we need to concentrate our efforts on limiting antibiotic prescriptions to patients who really need it, and work on reducing the duration of these treatments.

Impact of Extended and Restricted Antibiotic Deescalation on Mortality

BACKGROUND

More data are needed about the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in specific clinical situations as a strategy to reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. This study aims to compare the survival curve of patient de-escalated (early or late) against those not de-escalated on antibiotics, to determine the association of patient related, clinical related, and pressure sore/device related characteristics on all-cause 30-day mortality and determine the impact of early and late antibiotic de-escalation on 30-day all-cause mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study on patients in medical ward Hospital Kuala Lumpur, admitted between January 2016 and June 2019. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Fleming-Harrington test were used to compare the overall survival rates between early, late, and those not de-escalated on antibiotics while multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine prognostic factors associated with mortality and the impact of de-escalation on 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Overall mortality rates were not significantly different when patients were not de-escalated on extended or restricted antibiotics, compared to those de-escalated early or later (p = 0.760). Variables associated with 30-day all-cause mortality were a Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score on the day of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention and Charlson's comorbidity score (CCS). After controlling for confounders, early and late antibiotics were not associated with an increased risk of mortality.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study reinforce that restricted or extended antibiotic de-escalation in patients does not significantly affect 30-day all-cause mortality compared to continuation with extended and restricted antibiotics.

Timing of antibiotic therapy in the ICU

Severe or life threatening infections are common among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most infections in the ICU are bacterial or fungal in origin and require antimicrobial therapy for clinical resolution. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of therapy for infected critically ill patients. However, antibiotics are often not optimally administered resulting in less favorable patient outcomes including greater mortality. The timing of antibiotics in patients with life threatening infections including sepsis and septic shock is now recognized as one of the most important determinants of survival for this population. Individuals who have a delay in the administration of antibiotic therapy for serious infections can have a doubling or more in their mortality. Additionally, the timing of an appropriate antibiotic regimen, one that is active against the offending pathogens based on in vitro susceptibility, also influences survival. Thus not only is early empiric antibiotic administration important but the selection of those agents is crucial as well. The duration of antibiotic infusions, especially for β-lactams, can also influence antibiotic efficacy by increasing antimicrobial drug exposure for the offending pathogen. However, due to mounting antibiotic resistance, aggressive antimicrobial de-escalation based on microbiology results is necessary to counterbalance the pressures of early broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. In this review, we examine time related variables impacting antibiotic optimization as it relates to the treatment of life threatening infections in the ICU. In addition to highlighting the importance of antibiotic timing in the ICU we hope to provide an approach to antimicrobials that also minimizes the unnecessary use of these agents. Such approaches will increasingly be linked to advances in molecular microbiology testing and artificial intelligence/machine learning. Such advances should help identify patients needing empiric antibiotic therapy at an earlier time point as well as the specific antibiotics required in order to avoid unnecessary administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Time to blood, respiratory and urine culture positivity in the intensive care unit: Implications for de-escalation

Objectives

Concern for late detection of bacterial pathogens is a barrier to early de-escalation efforts. The purpose of this study was to assess blood, respiratory and urine culture results at 72 h to test the hypothesis that early negative culture results have a clinically meaningful negative predictive value.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit between March 2012 and July 2018 with blood cultures obtained. Blood, respiratory and urine culture results were assessed for time to positivity, defined as the time between culture collection and preliminary species identification. The primary outcome was the negative predictive value of negative blood culture results at 72 h. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of blood, respiratory and urine culture results.

Results

The analysis included 1567 blood, 514 respiratory and 1059 urine cultures. Of the blood, respiratory and urine cultures ultimately positive, 90.3%, 76.2% and 90.4% were positive at 72 h. The negative predictive value of negative 72-h blood, respiratory and urine cultures were 0.99, 0.82 and 0.97, respectively. Antibiotic de-escalation had good specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for finalized negative cultures.

Conclusion

Negative blood and urine culture results at 72 h had a high negative predictive value. These findings have important ramifications for antimicrobial stewardship efforts and support protocolized re-evaluation of empiric antibiotic therapy at 72 h. Caution should be used in patients with clinically suspected pneumonia, since negative respiratory culture results at 72 h were weakly predictive of finalized negative cultures.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

De-escalation of antimicrobial therapy in ICU settings with high prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacteria: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in patients with sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND

De-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy, a key component of antibiotic stewardship, is considered difficult in ICUs with high rates of antimicrobial resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility and the impact of antimicrobial de-escalation in ICUs with high rates of antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, observational study in septic patients with documented infections. Patients in whom de-escalation was applied were compared with patients without de-escalation by the use of a propensity score matching by SOFA score on the day of de-escalation initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 262 patients (mean age 62.2 ± 15.1 years) were included. Antibiotic-resistant pathogens comprised 62.9%, classified as MDR (12.5%), extensively drug-resistant (49%) and pandrug-resistant (1.2%). In 97 (37%) patients de-escalation was judged not feasible in view of the antibiotic susceptibility results. Of the remaining 165 patients, judged as patients with de-escalation possibility, de-escalation was applied in 60 (22.9%). These were matched to an equal number of patients without de-escalation. In this subset of 120 patients, de-escalation compared with no de-escalation was associated with lower all-cause 28 day mortality (13.3% versus 36.7%, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.66, P = 0.006); ICU and hospital mortality were also lower. De-escalation was associated with a subsequent collateral decrease in the SOFA score. Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed de-escalation as a significant factor for 28 day survival (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.70, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In ICUs with high levels of antimicrobial resistance, feasibility of antimicrobial de-escalation was limited because of the multi-resistant pathogens isolated. However, when de-escalation was feasible and applied, it was associated with lower mortality.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Exploring Physicians' Views, Perceptions and Experiences about Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Prescribing in a Tertiary Care Hospital Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Approach

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat associated with increased mortality, morbidity and costs. Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing, particularly of broad-spectrums antimicrobials (BSAs), is considered a major factor behind growing AMR. The aim of this study was to explore physician perception and views about BSAs and factors that impact upon their BSAs prescribing decisions. Qualitative semistructured telephone interviews over an eleven-week period were conducted with physicians in a single tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Purposeful and snowball sampling techniques were adopted as sampling strategy. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, uploaded to NVivo^® software and analysed following thematic analysis approach. Four major themes emerged: views on BSAs, factors influencing BSA prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship: practices and barriers and recommendations to improve appropriate BSA prescribing. Recommendations for the future include improving clinical knowledge, feedback on prescribing, multidisciplinary team decision-making and local guideline implementation. Identification of views and determinants of BSA prescribing can guide the design of a multifaceted intervention to support physicians and policymakers to improve antimicrobial prescribing practices.

Physician Responsiveness to Positive Blood Culture Results at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Hospital-Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Background

Patients presenting with suspected infections are typically placed on empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. With mounting evidence supporting the efficacy of using the narrowest spectrum of antimicrobial therapy to cover the suspected pathogen, current guidelines recommend decreasing the breadth of coverage in response to culture results both in relation to microbe identification and antibiotic sensitivity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of electronic health records at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Minnesota was performed for 208 positive blood cultures with antibiotic spectrum analysis from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The time of reporting for pathogen identification and subsequent pathogen susceptibilities were compared to the time at which any alterations to antibiotic coverage were made. The breadth of antibiotic coverage was recorded using a nonlinear spectrum score. The use of this score allowed for the reliable classification of antibiotic adjustments as either deescalation, escalation, or no change.

Results

The percentage of cases deescalated was higher in response to physician (house staff or attending physician) notification of pathogen susceptibility information when compared with a response to pathogen identification alone (33.2% vs 22.6%). Empiric antibiotics were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen identification in 70.7% of cases and were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen sensitivity determination in 58.6% of cases. However, when considering the time frame from when empiric antibiotics were started to 24 hours after notification of susceptibility information, 49.5% of cases were deescalated and 41.5% of cases had no net change in the antibiotic spectrum score. The magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. The mean (SD) time to deescalation of antibiotic coverage was shorter (P =.049) in response to pathogen identification at 8 (7.4) hours compared with sensitivity information at 10.4 (7) hours, but may not be clinically relevant.

Conclusion

Health care providers at the Minneapolis VAMC appear to be using positive blood culture results in a timely fashion consistent with best practices. Because empirically initiated antibiotics typically are broad in spectrum, the magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. Adherence to these standards may be a reflection of the infectious disease staff oversight of antibiotic administration. Furthermore, the systems outlined in this quality improvement study may be replicated at other VAMCs across the country by either in-house infectious disease staff or through remote monitoring of the electronic health record by other infectious disease experts at a more centralized VAMC. Widespread adoption throughout the Veterans Health Administration may result in improved antibiotic resistance profiles and better clinical outcomes for our nation's veterans.

Impact of the multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team intervention focusing on carbapenem de-escalation: A single-centre and interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

As a result of the constant increase in carbapenem resistance amongst gram-negative bacteria in several countries, the inappropriate use of carbapenems must be reduced. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) aim to improve carbapenem usage by implementing interventions, including the promotion of the de-escalation (DE) strategy. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of this strategy on carbapenem use based on a clear definition of DE.

METHODS

The post-prescription review and feedback (PPRF) strategy, which is used to optimise carbapenem use, was implemented by the antimicrobial stewardship team (AST). We compared the DE rate during the pre-AST intervention period (from April 2017 to March 2018) and post-AST intervention period (from April 2018 to March 2019).

RESULT

A total of 1500 patients (n = 771 in the pre-AST intervention period and n = 729 in the intervention post-AST period) were admitted to the hospital. The average duration of antibiotic therapy decreased from 9.9 to 7.7 days. The DE rate significantly increased in the post-AST intervention period compared with the pre-AST intervention period (51.4% vs 40.3%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The PPRF strategy implemented by the AST could improve the carbapenem usage by increasing the DE rate of carbapenem.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Clinical Microbiology in the Intensive Care Unit: Time for Intensivists to Rejuvenate this Lost Art

We live in an era of evolving microbial infections and equally evolving drug resistance among microorganisms. In any healthcare facility, intensivists play the most pivotal role with critically ill patients under their direct care. Majority of the critically ill patients already harbor a microorganism at admission or acquire one in the form of healthcare-associated infections during their course of intensive care unit stay. It is therefore rather imperative for intensivists to possess sound knowledge in clinical microbiology. On a negative note, most clinicians have very meager and remote knowledge acquired during their undergraduate years. This knowledge is rather theoretical than applied and wanes over the years becoming nonbeneficial in intensive patient care. We, therefore, intend to explore important concepts in applied microbiology and infection control that intensivists should know and implement in their clinical practice on a day-to-day basis.

How to cite this article: Princess I, Vadala R. Clinical Microbiology in the Intensive Care Unit: Time for Intensivists to Rejuvenate this Lost Art. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(5):566–574.

Safety and Feasibility of Antibiotic De-escalation in Critically Ill Children With Sepsis - A Prospective Analytical Study From a Pediatric ICU

Introduction: De-escalation is the key to balance judicious antibiotic usage for life-threatening infections and reducing the emergence of antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic overuse. Robust evidence is lacking regarding the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in culture negative sepsis. Materials and Methods: Children admitted to the PICU during the first 6 months of 2019 with suspected infection were included. Based on the clinical condition, cultures and septic markers, antibiotics were de-escalated or continued at 48-72 h. Outcome data like worsening of primary infection, acquisition of hospital acquired infection, level of ICU support and mortality were captured. Results: Among the 360 admissions, 247 (68.6%) children received antibiotics. After excluding 92 children, 155 children with 162 episodes of sepsis were included in the study. Thirty four episodes were not eligible for de-escalation. Among the eligible group of 128 episodes, antibiotics were de-escalated in 95 (74.2%) and continued in 33 (25.8%). The primary infection worsened in 5 (5.2%) children in the de-escalation group and in 1 (3%) in non de-escalation group [Hazard ratio: 2.12 (95%CI: 0.39-11.46)]. There were no significant differences in rates of hospital acquired infection, mortality or length of ICU stay amongst the groups. Blood cultures and assessment of clinical recovery played a major role in de-escalation of antibiotics and the clinician's hesitation to de-escalate in critically ill culture negative children was the main reason for not de-escalating among eligible children. Conclusion: Antibiotic de-escalation appears to be a safe strategy to apply in criticallly ill children, even in those with negative cultures.

Antimicrobial De-Escalation in the ICU: From Recommendations to Level of Evidence

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a component of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) aimed to reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. In the intensive care unit, ADE is a strong recommendation that is moderately applied in clinical practice. Following a systematic review of the literature, we assessed the studies identified on the topic which included one randomized controlled trial and 20 observational studies. The literature shows a low level of evidence, although observational studies suggested that this procedure is safe. The effects of ADE on the level of resistance of ecological systems and especially on the microbiota are unclear. The reviewers recommend de-escalating antimicrobial treatment in patients requiring long-term antibiotic therapy and considering de-escalation in short-term treatments.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure: the DIANA study

Purpose

The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation.

Methods

Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure.

Results

Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60–1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14–1.64).

Conclusion

ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06111-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Discontinuation of Glycopeptides in Patients with Culture Negative Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Implementation of antibiotic stewardship is difficult in patients with sepsis because of severity of disease. We evaluated the impact of glycopeptide discontinuation (GD) in patients with culture negative severe sepsis or septic shock who received glycopeptides as initial empiric antibiotic therapy at admission. We conducted a single center retrospective cohort study between January 2010 and March 2018. GD was defined as discontinuation of initial empiric glycopeptides on availability of culture results, revealing the absence of identified pathogens. In 92 included patients, the leading causes of sepsis were pneumonia (34.8%) and intra-abdominal infection (23.9%); 28-day mortality and overall mortality were 14% and 21%, respectively. Glycopeptides were discontinued in 42/92 patients. After propensity score matching, baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the GD and non-GD (GND) groups. GND was associated with development of acute kidney injury (OR 5.54, 95% CI 1.49–20.6, P = 0.011). GD did not increase the 7-day, 14-day, and 28-day mortality compared with GND. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the GD group than in GND group (16.33 ± 17.11 vs. 25.05 ± 14.37, P = 0.082), though not statistically significant. GD may be safe and reduce adverse events of prolonged antibiotic use in patients with culture negative severe sepsis or septic shock receiving glycopeptides as initial empiric antibiotic therapy.

Impact of antimicrobial de-escalation on mortality: a literature review of study methodology and recommendations for observational studies

Introduction: The safety of de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy is largely based on observational data, with many reporting protective effects on mortality. As there is no plausible biological explanation for this phenomenon, it is most probably caused by confounding by indication.Areas covered: We evaluate the methodology used in observational studies on the effects of de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy on mortality. We extended the search for a recent systematic review and identified 52 observational studies. The heterogeneity in study populations was large. Only 19 (36.5%) studies adjusted for confounders and four (8%) adjusted for clinical stability during admission, all as a fixed variable. All studies had methodological limitations, most importantly the lack of adjustment for clinical stability, causing bias toward a protective effect.Expert opinion: The methodology used in studies evaluating the effects of de-escalation on mortality requires improvement. We depicted all potential confounders in a directed acyclic graph to illustrate all associations between exposure (de-escalation) and outcome (mortality). Clinical stability is an important confounder in this association and should be modeled as a time-varying variable. We recommend to include de-escalation as time-varying exposure and use inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted marginal structural models to properly adjust for time-varying confounders.

Antimicrobial Therapy and Antimicrobial Stewardship in Sepsis

Since sepsis was first defined, sepsis management has remained challenging. To improve mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock, an accurate diagnosis and prompt administration of appropriate antibiotics are essential. The goals of antimicrobial stewardship are to achieve optimal clinical outcomes and to ensure cost-effectiveness and minimal unintended consequences, such as toxic effects and development of resistant pathogens. A combination of inadequate diagnostic criteria for sepsis and time pressure to provide broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy remains an obstacle for antimicrobial stewardship. Efforts such as selection of appropriate empirical antibiotics and de-escalation or determination of whether or not to stop antibiotics may help to improve a patient's clinical prognosis as well as the successful implementation of antimicrobial stewardship.

A Prospective Cohort Study of Factors Associated with Empiric Antibiotic De-escalation in Neonates Suspected with Early Onset Sepsis (EOS)

BACKGROUND

Prolonged empiric antibiotic use, resulting from diagnostic uncertainties, in suspected early onset sepsis (EOS) cases constitutes a significant problem. Unnecessary antibiotic use increases the risk of antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, prolonged antibiotic use increases the risk of mortality and morbidity in neonates. Proactive measures including empiric antibiotic de-escalation are crucial to overcome these problems.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study conducted in the neonatal intensive care units of two public hospitals in Malaysia. Neonates with a gestational age greater than 34 weeks who were started on empiric antibiotics within 72 h of life were screened. The data were then stratified according to de-escalation and non-de-escalation practices, where de-escalation practice was defined as narrowing down or discontinuation of empiric antibiotic within 72 h of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1045 neonates were screened, and 429 were included. The neonates were then divided based on de-escalation (n = 207) and non-de-escalation (n = 222) practices. Neonates under non-de-escalation practices showed significantly longer durations of antibiotic use compared to those under de-escalation practices (p < 0.05), with no difference in treatment outcomes. Five factors were found to be associated with de-escalation of antibiotics. They are cesarean section delivery, exposure to antenatal steroids, nil history of maternal pyrexia, absence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and normal C-reactive protein ≤ 0.5 mg/dL (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Empiric antibiotic de-escalation appears feasible as a routine form of treatment for EOS in late preterm and term neonates.

Antimicrobial de-escalation in critically ill patients: a position statement from a task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Critically Ill Patients Study Group (ESGCIP)

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a strategy of antimicrobial stewardship, aiming at preventing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by decreasing the exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. There is no high-quality research on ADE and its effects on AMR. Its definition varies and there is little evidence-based guidance for clinicians to use ADE in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A task force of 16 international experts was formed in November 2016 to provide with guidelines for clinical practice to develop questions targeted at defining ADE, its effects on the ICU population and to provide clinical guidance. Groups of 2 experts were assigned 1-2 questions each within their field of expertise to provide draft statements and rationale. A Delphi method, with 3 rounds and an agreement threshold of 70% was required to reach consensus.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive document with 13 statements, reviewing the evidence on the definition of ADE, its effects in the ICU population and providing guidance for clinicians in subsets of clinical scenarios where ADE may be considered.

CONCLUSION

ADE remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of clinical scenarios where it may be applied and the absence of evidence to the effects it may have on antimicrobial resistance.

Sustainable implementation of antibiotic stewardship on a surgical intensive care unit evaluated over a 10-year period

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective observational study examined the implementation of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) on the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of a specialized academic teaching hospital.

METHODS

Application density of antimicrobial agents (ADA), substance class change, development of resistance, and clinical outcomes were investigated with reference to ABS in three intervals over a 10-year period: the pre-intervention phase (2008-2010), the intervention phase (2011-2014), and the post-intervention phase (2015-2017).

RESULTS

Following the introduction of ABS, ADA was reduced from 89.3 recommended daily doses/100 patient days (RDD/100 PD) at the pre-intervention phase to 68.0 RDD/100 PD at the post-intervention phase. The antibiotic ADA (AB-ADA) similarly showed a significant decrease from 83.3 to 62.0 RDD/100 PD (p < 0.0001). The case mix index (CMI), which describes the average case severity across patients and mortality on the SICU was not significantly different comparing intervention and post-intervention phase. It was also possible to achieve a substance class change following the introduction of ABS. There was no obvious change in bacterial resistance rates.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates a sustainable effect of the implementation of ABS, which was sustained through the post-intervention phase.

Safety of antimicrobial de-escalation for culture-negative severe pneumonia

Purpose

This study investigated the outcomes of antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) based on mortality and the incidence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogen occurrence in patients with culture-negative pneumonia presenting with sepsis and septic shock.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with severe pneumonia requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission and possessing negative microbiological culture results at a tertiary referral hospital in South Korea from March 2008 to July 2018.

Results

We identified 107 patients with culture-negative pneumonia. The Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) mean scores were 20.3 ± 8.6 and 9.6 ± 3.3, respectively. Among the patients, 40 (37.4%) underwent ADE. The APACHE II, SOFA, and follow-up SOFA scores did not differ significantly between the groups, and no differences were found in ICU mortality and MDR pathogen occurrence (27.5% vs 41.8%, P = .137 and 15.0% vs 16.9% P = .794, respectively).

Conclusions

We observed similar ICU mortality and MDR pathogen occurrence in patients with culture-negative pneumonia presenting with sepsis/shock regardless of whether they received ADE. Additionally, ADE lowered the antimicrobial burden.

•

MDR pathogen occurrence was not reduced in patients who underwent ADE.

•

ADE was not significantly associated with increased ICU mortality.

•

Antimicrobial burden was significantly lower in ADE group.

Clinical outcomes of carbapenem de-escalation regardless of microbiological results: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of de-escalation in patients under treatment with carbapenems and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted for 1year. Patients administered active carbapenems for at least 24h were included. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mortality at 30 days after carbapenem prescription, and infection-related readmission within 30 days. De-escalation was defined as the substitution of carbapenem with narrower spectrum antimicrobial agents or its discontinuation during the first 96h of treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 1161 patients, and de-escalation was performed in 667 (57.5%) of these. In the de-escalation group, 54.9% of cultures were positive. After propensity score matching, 30-day mortality was lower (17.4% vs. 25.7%, p=0.036), carbapenem treatment was 4 days shorter (4 vs. 8 days, p<0.001), total antibiotic therapy duration was 2 days longer (12 vs. 10 days, p=0.003), and length of hospital stay was 5 days shorter (8 vs. 13 days, p=0.008) in the de-escalated versus non-de-escalated patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates did not differ significantly between these groups.

CONCLUSION

Carbapenem de-escalation is a safe strategy that does not compromise the clinical status of patients.

Efficacy and safety of antimicrobial de-escalation as a clinical strategy

INTRODUCTION

De-escalation is a widely recommended strategy in regard to guidelines, with an associated adherence to guidelines being around 50%. This review discusses data supporting de-escalation and possible obstacles for its implementation. Areas covered: Although it does not have a consensual definition, de-escalation consists of reducing the spectrum of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on the microbiological findings. Many observational studies have suggested that this strategy is likely safe and efficient for treating various types of infection. However, randomized controlled trials published as of now have not shown any improvement on the outcomes. Regarding the adverse effects of de-escalation on ecological pressure and multidrug resistance emergence, the data are contradictory. The implementation of new techniques, such as rapid diagnosis, can help guide clinicians. Expert opinion: De-escalation should be included as part of a large antibiotic stewardship program to balance the risk and benefit of each administration, and each physician prescribing antibiotics should be challenged for the quality of her/his prescription on a daily basis. In the future, one of our duties will involve determining whether a delay of antimicrobial treatment - making it possible to improve diagnostic performance and obtain the first laboratory results - is either safe or unsafe for our patients.

Antibiotics De-Escalation in the Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Study on Propensity Score Matching Method

Background:

Antimicrobial de-escalation refers to starting the antimicrobial treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by narrowing the drug spectrum according to culture results. The present study evaluated the effect of de-escalation on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in trauma patients.

Methods:

This retrospective study was conducted on trauma patients with VAP, who received de-escalation therapy (de-escalation group) or non-de-escalation therapy (non-de-escalation group). Propensity score matching method was used to balance the baseline characteristics between both groups. The 28-day mortality, length of hospitalization and Intensive Care Unit stay, and expense of antibiotics and hospitalization between both groups were compared. Multivariable analysis explored the factors that influenced the 28-day mortality and implementation of de-escalation.

Results:

Among the 156 patients, 62 patients received de-escalation therapy and 94 patients received non-de-escalation therapy. No significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between both groups (28.6% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.620). The duration of antibiotics treatment in the de-escalation group was shorter than that in the non-de-escalation group (11 [8–13] vs. 14 [8–19] days, P = 0.045). The expenses of antibiotics and hospitalization in de-escalation group were significantly lower than that in the non-de-escalation group (6430 ± 2730 vs. 7618 ± 2568 RMB Yuan, P = 0.043 and 19,173 ± 16,861 vs. 24,184 ± 12,039 RMB Yuan, P = 0.024, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, high injury severity score, multi-drug resistant (MDR) infection, and inappropriate initial antibiotics were associated with patients' 28-day mortality, while high APACHE II score, MDR infection and inappropriate initial antibiotics were independent factors that prevented the implementation of de-escalation.

Conclusions:

De-escalation strategy in the treatment of trauma patients with VAP could reduce the duration of antibiotics treatments and expense of hospitalization, without increasing the 28-day mortality and MDR infection.

Choosing wisely: what is the actual role of antimicrobial stewardship in Intensive Care Units?

More than two-thirds of critically ill patients receive an antimicrobial therapy with a percentage between 30% and 50% of all prescribed antibiotics reported to be unnecessary, inappropriate or misused. Since inappropriate prescription of antibiotic drugs concurs to dissemination of the multidrug resistant organisms, a reasoned antibiotics use is crucial especially in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where up to 60% of the admitted patients develops an infection during their ICU stay. Even if the concept of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) has been clearly described as a series of coordinated interventions designed to improve antimicrobial agents use, few studies are reporting about its effectiveness to improve outcomes, reduce adverse events and costs and decrease resistance rate spread. Moreover, although it is recognized that AS programs are particularly indicated in the critical setting due to the huge number of antimicrobial drugs used, the optimal characteristics of these interventions and the best system to evaluate their effectiveness are still unclear. Specific interventions, designed tacking into account the peculiarities of the ICU setting, are hence necessary to set-up an "in-ICU-stewardship," including prompt identification of infected patients, selection of appropriate empiric treatments, optimization of dosing and route of administration, improvement of diagnostic techniques, early de-escalation to achieve shorter duration and avoid unnecessary therapies. The present narrative review summarizes the "state of art" about AS programmes and discusses the effects of the interventions possibly applied in ICU setting to optimize the patient's treatment, reduce the micro-organisms resistance and contain the hospital resources utilization.

Intensive care unit drug costs in the context of total hospital drug expenditures with suggestions for targeted cost containment efforts

PURPOSE

To assess costs of intensive care unit (ICU) related pharmacotherapy relative to hospital drug expenditures, and to identify potential targets for cost-effectiveness investigations. We offer the unique advantage of comparing ICU drug costs with previously published data a decade earlier to describe changes over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Financial transactions for all ICU patients during fiscal years (FY) 2009-2012 were retrieved from the hospital's data repository. ICU drug costs were evaluated for each FY. ICU departments' charges were also retrieved and calculated as percentages of total ICU charges.

RESULTS

Albumin, prismasate (dialysate), voriconazole, factor VII and alteplase denoted the highest percentages of ICU drug costs. ICU drug costs contributed to an average of 31% (SD 1.0%) of the hospital's total drug costs. ICU drug costs per patient day increased by 5.8% yearly versus 7.8% yearly for non-ICU drugs. This rate was higher for ICU drugs costs at 12% a decade previous. Pharmacy charges contributed to 17.7% of the total ICU charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Growth rates of costs per year have declined but still drug expenditures in the ICU are consistently a significant driver in this resource intensive environment with a high impact on hospital drug expenditures.

Unmet needs in the management of intra-abdominal infections

INTRODUCTION

Intra-abdominal infections remain a leading cause of death, morbidity and resource use in surgical wards and intensive care units. The growing complexity of their management has led to new paradigms and unresolved issues in anti-infective therapy described in the current review. Areas covered: We analyzed the literature, recent guidelines, and expert opinions published over the last decade. Expert commentary: Prospective randomized trials are difficult to perform and observational studies or database analyses should be encouraged. Epidemiologic and microbiologic reports should be promoted, especially in developing/resource-limited countries and in specific subpopulations such as children, older people and patients with underlying diseases. The diagnostic process, including imaging procedures, could be improved. The value of biomarkers for diagnosis, monitoring and discontinuation of therapy should be clarified and improved. New microbiologic techniques are needed to speed up the diagnostic process and to improve the adequacy of anti-infective therapy. Very little progress has been made in the detection of clinical failures. Many aspects of anti-infective management, both for bacteria and fungi, remain unresolved, such as the high inoculum, the type of microorganisms to be treated, the timing of therapy, the value of de-escalation, drug monitoring and duration of therapy. New antibiotics are expected.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Collaborative approach of individual participant data of prospective studies of de-escalation in non-immunosuppressed critically ill patients with sepsis

BACKGROUND

There is a concern to conduct de-escalation in very sick patients.

AIMS

To determine if de-escalation is feasible in ICU settings.

METHODS

We performed a metaanalysis of published studies conducted comparing de-escalation (defined by withdrawal of at least one antimicrobial empirically prescribed, switch to a new antimicrobial with narrower spectrum and withdrawal of at least one antimicrobial plus change of another drug to a new one with narrower spectrum) in non-immunocompromised patients with sepsis admitted to ICU.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and seventeen patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were evaluated. De-escalation was applied in 274 patients (33.5%). We found no differences in hospital long of stay between de-escalation group compared to those who did not receive it. We also found significant lower hospital mortality in de-escalation group as compared with no modification group in front of the others (25.9 vs. 43.1%; p < 0.001). Taking into account the etiology of infection, in both gram negative and gram positives microorganisms, de-escalation strategy was assessed as a good prognosis factor for mortality in the adjusted multivariate analysis (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.74 and OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15-0.70 respectively) whereas SOFA score along with age were found as a factors independently associated with a worse clinical outcome (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.12-1.35 and OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study there was an independent association of de-escalation and decrease mortality rate.

Convergence of Minds: For Better Patient Outcome in Intensive Care Unit Infections

BACKGROUND

There is emergence of resistance to the last-line antibiotics such as carbapenems in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), leaving little effective therapeutic options. Since there are no more newer antibiotics in the armamentarium in the near future, it has become imperative that we harness the interdisciplinary knowledge for the best clinical outcome of the patient.

AIMS

The aim of the conference was to utilize the synergies between the clinical microbiologists and critical care specialists for better patient care and clinical outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A combined continuing medical education program (CME) under the aegis of the Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists - Delhi Chapter and the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, Delhi and national capital region was organized to share their expertise on the various topics covering epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention of hospital-acquired infections in ICUs.

RESULTS

It was agreed that synergy between the clinical microbiologists and critical care medicine is required in understanding the scope of laboratory tests, investigative pathway testing, hospital epidemiology, and optimum use of antibiotics. A consensus on the use of rapid diagnostics such as point-of-care tests, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry, and molecular tests for the early diagnosis of infectious disease was made. It was agreed that stewardship activities along with hospital infection control practices should be further strengthened for better utilization of the antibiotics. Through this CME, we identified the barriers and actionables for appropriate antimicrobial usage in Indian ICUs.

CONCLUSIONS

A close coordination between clinical microbiology and critical care medicine opens up avenues to improve antimicrobial prescription practices.

Frequency of empiric antibiotic de-escalation in an acute care hospital with an established Antimicrobial Stewardship Program

BACKGROUND

Expanding antimicrobial resistance patterns in the face of stagnant growth in novel antibiotic production underscores the importance of antibiotic stewardship in which de-escalation remains an integral component. We measured the frequency of antibiotic de-escalation in a tertiary care medical center with an established antimicrobial stewardship program to provide a plausible benchmark for de-escalation.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study was performed by review of randomly selected electronic medical records of 240 patients who received simultaneous piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin from January to December 2011 at an 885-bed tertiary care medical center. Patient characteristics including antibiotic regimen, duration and indication, culture results, length of stay, and hospital mortality were evaluated. Antibiotic de-escalation was defined as the use of narrower spectrum antibiotics or the discontinuation of antibiotics after initiation of piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin therapy. Subjects dying within 72 h of antibiotic initiation were considered not de-escalated for subsequent analysis and were subtracted from the study population in determining a modified mortality rate.

RESULTS

The most commonly documented indications for piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin therapy were pneumonia and sepsis. Of the 240 patients studied, 151 (63%) had their antibiotic regimens de-escalated by 72 h. The proportion of patients de-escalated by 96 h with positive vs. negative cultures was similar, 71 and 72%, respectively. Median length of stay was 4 days shorter in de-escalated patients, and the difference in adjusted mortality was not significant (p = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The empiric antibiotic regimens of approximately two-thirds of patients were de-escalated by 72 h in an institution with a well-established antimicrobial stewardship program. While this study provides one plausible benchmark for antibiotic de-escalation, further studies, including evaluations of antibiotic appropriateness and patient outcomes, are needed to inform decisions on potential benchmarks for antibiotic de-escalation.

Determinants of Deescalation Failure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction. Deescalation refers to either discontinuation or a step-down of antimicrobials. Despite strong recommendations in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (2012) to deescalate, actual practices can vary. Our objective was to identify variables that are associated with deescalation failure. Methods. In this prospective study of patients with sepsis/septic shock, patients were categorized into 4 groups based on antibiotic administration: no change in antibiotics, deescalation, escalation (where antibiotics were changed to those with a broader spectrum of antimicrobial coverage), or mixed changes (where both escalation to a broader spectrum of coverage and discontinuation of antibiotics were carried out). Results. 395 patients were studied; mean APACHE II score was 24 ± 7.8. Antimicrobial deescalation occurred in 189 (48%) patients; no changes were made in 156 (39%) patients. On multivariate regression analysis, failure to deescalate was significantly predicted by hematologic malignancy OR 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-7.4) p < 0.004, fungal sepsis OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.2-5.8) p = 0.011, multidrug resistance OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.4-6.0) p = 0.003, baseline serum procalcitonin OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.003-1.016) p = 0.002, and SAPS II scores OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.004-1.02) p = 0.006. Conclusions. Current deescalation practices reflect physician reluctance when dealing with complicated, sicker patients or with drug-resistance or fungal sepsis. Integrating an antibiotic stewardship program may increase physician confidence and provide support towards increasing deescalation rates.

Is de-escalation of antimicrobials effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

De-escalation therapy is a strategy used widely to treat infections while avoiding the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. However, there is a paucity of clinical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation therapy compared to conventional therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on de-escalation therapy for a variety of infections. A search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2015 for relevant studies was performed. The primary outcome was relevant mortality, such as 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality. A meta-analysis was to be conducted for the pooled odds ratio using the random-effects model when possible. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in mortality for most infections, and some studies favored de-escalation over non-de-escalation for better survival. The quality of most studies included was not high.

CONCLUSIONS

This review and analysis suggests that de-escalation therapy is safe and effective for most infections, although higher quality studies are needed in the future.

Characteristics and outcomes of anti-infective de-escalation during health care-associated intra-abdominal infections

Background

De-escalation is strongly recommended for antibiotic stewardship. No studies have addressed this issue in the context of health care-associated intra-abdominal infections (HCIAI). We analyzed the factors that could interfere with this process and their clinical consequences in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with HCIAI.

Methods

All consecutive patients admitted for the management of HCIAI who survived more than 3 days following their diagnosis, who remained in the ICU for more than 3 days, and who did not undergo early reoperation during the first 3 days were analyzed prospectively in an observational, single-center study in a tertiary care university hospital.

Results

Overall, 311 patients with HCIAI were admitted to the ICU. De-escalation was applied in 110 patients (53 %), and no de-escalation was reported in 96 patients (47 %) (escalation in 65 [32 %] and unchanged regimen in 31 [15 %]). Lower proportions of Enterococcus faecium, nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB), and multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains were cultured in the de-escalation group. No clinical difference was observed at day 7 between patients who were de-escalated and those who were not. Determinants of de-escalation in multivariate analysis were adequate empiric therapy (OR 9.60, 95 % CI 4.02–22.97) and empiric use of vancomycin (OR 3.39, 95 % CI 1.46–7.87), carbapenems (OR 2.64, 95 % CI 1.01–6.91), and aminoglycosides (OR 2.31 95 % CI 1.08–4.94). The presence of NFGNB (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.09–0.89) and the presence of MDR bacteria (OR 0.21, 95 % CI 0.09–0.52) were risk factors for non-de-escalation. De-escalation did not change the overall duration of therapy. The risk factors for death at day 28 were presence of fungi (HR 2.64, 95 % CI 1.34–5.17), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on admission (HR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.16–1.42), and age (HR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01–1.05). The survival rate expressed by a Kaplan-Meier curve was similar between groups (log-rank test p value 0.176).

Conclusions

De-escalation is a feasible option in patients with polymicrobial infections such as HCIAI, but MDR organisms and NFGNB limit its implementation.

Impact of de-escalation of beta-lactam antibiotics on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in ICU patients: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Antibiotic de-escalation is promoted to limit prolonged exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics, but proof that it prevents the emergence of resistance is lacking. We evaluated determinants of antibiotic de-escalation in an attempt to assess whether the latter is associated with a lower emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

METHODS

Antibiotic treatments, starting with empirical beta-lactam prescriptions, were prospectively documented during 2013 and 2014 in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) and categorized as continuation, de-escalation or escalation of the empirical antimicrobial treatment. Determinants of the de-escalation or escalation treatments were identified by multivariate logistic regression; the continuation category was used as the reference group. Using systematically collected diagnostic and surveillance cultures, we estimated the cumulative incidence of antimicrobial resistance following de-escalation or continuation of therapy, with adjustment for ICU discharge and death as competing risks.

RESULTS

Of 478 anti-pseudomonal antibiotic prescriptions, 42 (9 %) were classified as escalation of the antimicrobial treatment and 121 (25 %) were classified as de-escalation, mainly through replacement of the originally prescribed antibiotics with those having a narrower spectrum. In multivariate analysis, de-escalation was associated with the identification of etiologic pathogens (p < 0.001). The duration of the antibiotic course in the ICU in de-escalated versus continued prescriptions was 8 (range 6-10) versus 5 (range 4-7) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Mortality did not differ between patients in the de-escalation and continuation categories. The cumulative incidence estimates of the emergence of resistance to the initial beta-lactam antibiotic on day 14 were 30.6 and 23.5 % for de-escalation and continuation, respectively (p = 0.22). For the selection of multi-drug resistant pathogens, these values were 23.5 (de-escalation) and 18.6 % (continuation) respectively (p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria after exposure to anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotics was not lower following de-escalation.

A Systematic Review of the Definitions, Determinants, and Clinical Outcomes of Antimicrobial De-escalation in the Intensive Care Unit

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a strategy to reduce the spectrum of antimicrobials and aims to prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance. We present a systematic review describing the definitions, determinants and outcomes associated with ADE. We included 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies. There was considerable variability in the definition of ADE. It was more frequently performed in patients with broad-spectrum and/or appropriate antimicrobial therapy (P= .05 to .002), when more agents were used (P= .002), and in the absence of multidrug-resistant pathogens (P< .05). Where investigated, lower or improving severity scores were consistently associated with ADE (P= .04 to <.001). The pooled effect of ADE on mortality is protective (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, .52-.88). Because the determinants of ADE are markers of clinical improvement and/or of lower risk of treatment failure this effect on mortality cannot be retained as evidence. None of the studies were designed to investigate the effect of ADE on antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotic de-escalation in the ICU: how is it best done?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An antimicrobial policy consisting of the initial use of wide-spectrum antimicrobials followed by a reassessment of treatment when culture results are available is termed de-escalation therapy. Our aim is to examine the safety and feasibility of antibiotic de-escalation in critically ill patients providing practical tips about how to accomplish this strategy in the critical care setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous studies have assessed the rates of de-escalation therapy (range from 10 to 60%) in patients with severe sepsis or ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as the factors associated with de-escalation. De-escalation generally refers to a reduction in the spectrum of administered antibiotics through the discontinuation of antibiotics or switching to an agent with a narrower spectrum. Diverse studies have identified the adequacy of initial therapy as a factor independently associated with de-escalation. Negative impact on different outcome measures has not been reported in the observational studies. Two randomized clinical trials have evaluated this strategy in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia or severe sepsis. These trials alert us about the possibility that this strategy may be linked to a higher rate of reinfections but without an impact on mortality.

SUMMARY

Antibiotic de-escalation is a well tolerated management strategy in critically ill patients but unfortunately is not widely adopted.

Preventive and therapeutic strategies in critically ill patients with highly resistant bacteria

The antibiotic pipeline continues to diminish and the majority of the public remains unaware of this critical situation. The cause of the decline of antibiotic development is multifactorial and currently most ICUs are confronted with the challenge of multidrug-resistant organisms. Antimicrobial multidrug resistance is expanding all over the world, with extreme and pandrug resistance being increasingly encountered, especially in healthcare-associated infections in large highly specialized hospitals. Antibiotic stewardship for critically ill patients translated into the implementation of specific guidelines, largely promoted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, targeted at education to optimize choice, dosage, and duration of antibiotics in order to improve outcomes and reduce the development of resistance. Inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, meaning the selection of an antibiotic to which the causative pathogen is resistant, is a consistent predictor of poor outcomes in septic patients. Therefore, pharmacokinetically/pharmacodynamically optimized dosing regimens should be given to all patients empirically and, once the pathogen and susceptibility are known, local stewardship practices may be employed on the basis of clinical response to redefine an appropriate regimen for the patient. This review will focus on the most severely ill patients, for whom substantial progress in organ support along with diagnostic and therapeutic strategies markedly increased the risk of nosocomial infections.