Impact of Empirical Treatment Recommendations From 2017 European Guidelines for Nosocomial Pneumonia.

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.021
Davide Calabretta, Catia Cilloniz, Albert Gabarrus, Ana Motos, Flavia Galli, Miquel Ferrer, Laia Fernandez-Barat, Andrea Palomeque, Giovanni Mistraletti, Mauro Panigada, Cristina Pitart, Mateu Espasa, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Antoni Torres
{"title":"Impact of Empirical Treatment Recommendations From 2017 European Guidelines for Nosocomial Pneumonia.","authors":"Davide Calabretta, Catia Cilloniz, Albert Gabarrus, Ana Motos, Flavia Galli, Miquel Ferrer, Laia Fernandez-Barat, Andrea Palomeque, Giovanni Mistraletti, Mauro Panigada, Cristina Pitart, Mateu Espasa, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Antoni Torres","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of nosocomial pneumonia represents a major challenge in the ICU. European guidelines from 2017 proposed an algorithm for the prescription of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on medical history, local ecology, and severity (ie, presence or absence of septic shock). We assessed this algorithm's usefulness by comparing outcomes with and without guideline adherence in a population at high risk of multiresistance and mortality.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Are the recommendations of the latest European guidelines effective in reducing the incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia admitted to the ICU?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed data from a prospective cohort of 507 patients from 6 ICUs in our center. To minimize bias, we only included patients with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, inadequate treatment, treatment failure, and overtreatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 315 patients met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes were comparable in the groups with and without guideline adherence, except for overtreatment, which was higher when guidelines were followed (42.5% vs 66.3%; P < .001). In the subgroup without septic shock treated according to guidelines, reductions were noted in both ICU mortality (28.8% vs 14.5%; P = .031) and adjusted 28-day mortality (hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.13-7.85; P = .027). By contrast, no benefit was observed when patients presented with septic shock at diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The European guideline treatment algorithm has proven to be effective in reducing mortality in patients without septic shock but not in those with septic shock at the time of diagnosis. Future studies should clarify whether adjustments need to be made to improve outcomes in patients with septic shock.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The management of nosocomial pneumonia represents a major challenge in the ICU. European guidelines from 2017 proposed an algorithm for the prescription of empirical antimicrobial treatment based on medical history, local ecology, and severity (ie, presence or absence of septic shock). We assessed this algorithm's usefulness by comparing outcomes with and without guideline adherence in a population at high risk of multiresistance and mortality.

Research question: Are the recommendations of the latest European guidelines effective in reducing the incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with nosocomial pneumonia admitted to the ICU?

Study design and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from a prospective cohort of 507 patients from 6 ICUs in our center. To minimize bias, we only included patients with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, ICU mortality, inadequate treatment, treatment failure, and overtreatment.

Results: In total, 315 patients met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes were comparable in the groups with and without guideline adherence, except for overtreatment, which was higher when guidelines were followed (42.5% vs 66.3%; P < .001). In the subgroup without septic shock treated according to guidelines, reductions were noted in both ICU mortality (28.8% vs 14.5%; P = .031) and adjusted 28-day mortality (hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.13-7.85; P = .027). By contrast, no benefit was observed when patients presented with septic shock at diagnosis.

Interpretation: The European guideline treatment algorithm has proven to be effective in reducing mortality in patients without septic shock but not in those with septic shock at the time of diagnosis. Future studies should clarify whether adjustments need to be made to improve outcomes in patients with septic shock.

2017 年欧洲非典型肺炎指南中经验性治疗建议的影响。
背景:非典型肺炎的管理是重症监护病房面临的一大挑战。2017 年的欧洲指南提出了一种基于病史、当地生态学和严重程度(即是否存在脓毒性休克)的经验性抗菌治疗处方算法。我们通过比较在高耐药性和高死亡率人群中遵守和不遵守指南的结果来评估该算法的实用性:研究问题:最新欧洲指南的建议是否能有效降低入住重症监护室的非典型肺炎患者的不良结局发生率?我们回顾性分析了来自本中心 6 个重症监护室 507 名患者的前瞻性队列数据。为减少偏倚,我们只纳入了经微生物学确诊的肺炎患者。主要结果是 28 天死亡率。次要结果为 90 天死亡率、重症监护病房死亡率、治疗不足、治疗失败和过度治疗:共有 315 名患者符合纳入标准。除过度治疗外,遵循和不遵循指南组的结果相当,遵循指南组的过度治疗率更高(42.5% vs 66.3%; P < .001)。在按照指南治疗的无脓毒性休克亚组中,ICU死亡率(28.8% vs 14.5%;P = .031)和调整后的28天死亡率(危险比,3.07;95% CI,1.13-7.85;P = .027)均有所下降。相比之下,如果患者在确诊时出现脓毒性休克,则无法从中获益:事实证明,欧洲指南治疗算法能有效降低无脓毒性休克患者的死亡率,但不能降低诊断时出现脓毒性休克患者的死亡率。今后的研究应明确是否需要进行调整,以改善脓毒性休克患者的预后。
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
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
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