A Pilot Study to Evaluate Appropriateness of Empirical Antibiotic Use in Intensive Care Unit of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Basim Huwait, Basheer Abd El Rahman, M. A. Rana, H. Alam, Ramadan Oes, W. Aletreby, A. Mady, Harthy Ama
{"title":"A Pilot Study to Evaluate Appropriateness of Empirical Antibiotic Use in Intensive Care Unit of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia","authors":"Basim Huwait, Basheer Abd El Rahman, M. A. Rana, H. Alam, Ramadan Oes, W. Aletreby, A. Mady, Harthy Ama","doi":"10.35248/2327-5146.7.323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antibiotics are commonly administered therapies in ICU. There has been a concern over antibiotic misuse recently. ICU is both a victim and a contributor to the ongoing antibiotic misuse problem and a cause of emerging resistance among the pathogens commonly acquired in intensive care units. Because of high mortality associated with sepsis, it is a great challenge for intensive care physicians to select appropriate antibiotic sometimes without any culture and sensitivity. Similarly the time to deescalate also remains a tough call. Selection of appropriate antibiotics empirically has always been a topic of debate among Intensive Care and Infectious Disease practitioners. \n \nObjective: The aim of our pilot study was not only to assess the appropriateness of use of antibiotics in our ICU but to help us guide to design a bigger study and structure a stewardship program for ICU; also to assess the differences among prescription of ICU and Infectious Disease Consultants. \n \nMethod: A prospective observational study in King Saud Medical City ICU following antibiotics started and stopped from 6th November 2014 to 23rd November 2014. Study included 23 adult patients admitted with different etiologies. All 23 patients’ records were shared with two alien referees (one was infectious diseases and other was ICU consultant) from other hospital. Prescribers were blinded to the fact that data was being collected for auditing and the referees were blinded to prescribers and to each other’s. \n \nResults: Total 46 antibiotics were used. 40 among them were started on empirically, 6 were culture based. 31 antibiotics were stopped by ICU. 28 among these 31 antibiotics were empirical. Most of included patients responded to combination or monotherapy. Piperacillin-Tazobactam was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. No major difference was noted among the choice of intensive care or infectious disease consultant. \n \nConclusion: Empirical antibiotics are vital for patients admitted in ICU. We need to follow hospital's anti-biogram and stewardship programs with prompt de-escalation wherever appropriate.","PeriodicalId":122998,"journal":{"name":"General Medicine: Open Access","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General Medicine: Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2327-5146.7.323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Antibiotics are commonly administered therapies in ICU. There has been a concern over antibiotic misuse recently. ICU is both a victim and a contributor to the ongoing antibiotic misuse problem and a cause of emerging resistance among the pathogens commonly acquired in intensive care units. Because of high mortality associated with sepsis, it is a great challenge for intensive care physicians to select appropriate antibiotic sometimes without any culture and sensitivity. Similarly the time to deescalate also remains a tough call. Selection of appropriate antibiotics empirically has always been a topic of debate among Intensive Care and Infectious Disease practitioners. Objective: The aim of our pilot study was not only to assess the appropriateness of use of antibiotics in our ICU but to help us guide to design a bigger study and structure a stewardship program for ICU; also to assess the differences among prescription of ICU and Infectious Disease Consultants. Method: A prospective observational study in King Saud Medical City ICU following antibiotics started and stopped from 6th November 2014 to 23rd November 2014. Study included 23 adult patients admitted with different etiologies. All 23 patients’ records were shared with two alien referees (one was infectious diseases and other was ICU consultant) from other hospital. Prescribers were blinded to the fact that data was being collected for auditing and the referees were blinded to prescribers and to each other’s. Results: Total 46 antibiotics were used. 40 among them were started on empirically, 6 were culture based. 31 antibiotics were stopped by ICU. 28 among these 31 antibiotics were empirical. Most of included patients responded to combination or monotherapy. Piperacillin-Tazobactam was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. No major difference was noted among the choice of intensive care or infectious disease consultant. Conclusion: Empirical antibiotics are vital for patients admitted in ICU. We need to follow hospital's anti-biogram and stewardship programs with prompt de-escalation wherever appropriate.
在沙特阿拉伯利雅得沙特国王医疗城重症监护病房评估经验性抗生素使用适宜性的试点研究
背景:抗生素是ICU常用的治疗方法。最近对抗生素的滥用引起了关注。ICU既是受害者,也是持续的抗生素滥用问题的贡献者,也是重症监护病房中常见的病原体出现耐药性的原因。由于脓毒症的高死亡率,重症监护医生在没有任何培养和敏感性的情况下选择合适的抗生素是一个巨大的挑战。同样,何时降级也仍然是一个艰难的决定。根据经验选择适当的抗生素一直是重症监护和传染病从业人员争论的话题。目的:本初步研究的目的不仅是评估我们ICU使用抗生素的适宜性,而且有助于指导我们设计更大的研究和构建ICU管理计划;并评估ICU医师与传染病专科医师处方的差异。方法:对2014年11月6日至2014年11月23日在沙特国王医疗城ICU开停抗生素患者进行前瞻性观察研究。研究纳入23例不同病因的成年患者。所有23名患者的记录均与来自其他医院的两名外籍裁判(一名是传染病科,另一名是ICU会诊医师)共享。开处方者不知道数据是为了审计而收集的,裁判也不知道开处方者和彼此的数据。结果:共使用46种抗生素。其中40项是经验性的,6项是基于文化的。ICU停用抗生素31例。31种抗生素中有28种是经验性的。大多数纳入的患者对联合或单一治疗有反应。哌拉西林-他唑巴坦是最常用的抗生素。重症监护和传染病顾问的选择没有显著差异。结论:经验性抗菌药物对ICU住院患者至关重要。我们需要遵循医院的反生化手册和管理程序,在适当的情况下迅速降级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信