Antibiotic Usage After Procalcitonin-Guided Therapy Algorithm Implementation In A Burn Intensive Care Unit.

Q3 Medicine
Annals of burns and fire disasters Pub Date : 2020-12-31
V Zbyrak, S L Reverón, S Smoke, A Mehta, M A Marano, R Lee
{"title":"Antibiotic Usage After Procalcitonin-Guided Therapy Algorithm Implementation In A Burn Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"V Zbyrak,&nbsp;S L Reverón,&nbsp;S Smoke,&nbsp;A Mehta,&nbsp;M A Marano,&nbsp;R Lee","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study investigated antibiotic utilization after the implementation of a procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic algorithm in the burn intensive care unit (BICU) to minimize antibiotic exposure appropriately. An algorithm established the ordering of an initial procalcitonin level, an additional level following 48 hours post-admission, and upon suspicion of sepsis. The primary endpoint was the percent of days on antibiotics in the BICU. Secondary endpoints were the percent of patients reinitiated on antibiotics, length of BICU and hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) and Response Adjusted for Duration of Antibiotic Risk (RADAR) methodology aided in antibiotic usage evaluation. The retrospective and prospective phases involved five and seven patients in the final analysis, respectively. The median percent of days on antibiotics in the BICU was 33.3% versus 14.3% in the retrospective and prospective phases, respectively (p=0.222). Secondary outcomes evaluated were percent of patients reinitiated on antibiotics at 80.0% versus 28.6% (p=0.242), the median length of BICU stay at 38 days versus 31 days (p=0.465), the median duration of hospital stay at 39 days versus 37 days (p=0.624) and 30-day mortality of one versus zero cases (p=0.417) in the retrospective and prospective group, respectively. The probability of better DOOR with a PCT-guided antibiotic algorithm versus the control group was 95.7% (95% CI, 81.4-99.5%). The benefit of a PCT-guided antibiotic algorithm implementation cannot be determined based on the small sample size producing a lack of internal validity. Future studies warrant utilizing DOOR/RADAR to evaluate antibiotic stewardship strategies in the burn patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":8392,"journal":{"name":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7894847/pdf/Ann-Burns-and-Fire-Disasters-33-317.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of burns and fire disasters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study investigated antibiotic utilization after the implementation of a procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic algorithm in the burn intensive care unit (BICU) to minimize antibiotic exposure appropriately. An algorithm established the ordering of an initial procalcitonin level, an additional level following 48 hours post-admission, and upon suspicion of sepsis. The primary endpoint was the percent of days on antibiotics in the BICU. Secondary endpoints were the percent of patients reinitiated on antibiotics, length of BICU and hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) and Response Adjusted for Duration of Antibiotic Risk (RADAR) methodology aided in antibiotic usage evaluation. The retrospective and prospective phases involved five and seven patients in the final analysis, respectively. The median percent of days on antibiotics in the BICU was 33.3% versus 14.3% in the retrospective and prospective phases, respectively (p=0.222). Secondary outcomes evaluated were percent of patients reinitiated on antibiotics at 80.0% versus 28.6% (p=0.242), the median length of BICU stay at 38 days versus 31 days (p=0.465), the median duration of hospital stay at 39 days versus 37 days (p=0.624) and 30-day mortality of one versus zero cases (p=0.417) in the retrospective and prospective group, respectively. The probability of better DOOR with a PCT-guided antibiotic algorithm versus the control group was 95.7% (95% CI, 81.4-99.5%). The benefit of a PCT-guided antibiotic algorithm implementation cannot be determined based on the small sample size producing a lack of internal validity. Future studies warrant utilizing DOOR/RADAR to evaluate antibiotic stewardship strategies in the burn patient population.

降钙素原引导治疗算法在烧伤重症监护室实施后的抗生素使用。
该研究调查了在烧伤重症监护病房(BICU)实施降钙素原(PCT)引导的抗生素算法后的抗生素使用情况,以适当减少抗生素暴露。一种算法确定了初始降钙素原水平的顺序,入院后48小时和怀疑败血症时的额外水平。主要终点是在BICU使用抗生素的天数百分比。次要终点是重新开始使用抗生素的患者百分比,BICU和住院时间的长度,以及30天死亡率。结果排序的可取性(DOOR)和根据抗生素风险持续时间调整的反应(RADAR)方法有助于抗生素使用评估。在最后的分析中,回顾性和前瞻性阶段分别涉及5名和7名患者。BICU中位抗生素天数百分比分别为33.3%和14.3%,在回顾性和前瞻性阶段(p=0.222)。评估的次要结果是,回顾性组和前瞻性组中重新开始使用抗生素的患者比例分别为80.0%和28.6% (p=0.242), BICU住院时间中位数分别为38天和31天(p=0.465),住院时间中位数分别为39天和37天(p=0.624), 30天死亡率分别为1例和0例(p=0.417)。与对照组相比,采用pct引导的抗生素算法获得更好DOOR的概率为95.7% (95% CI, 81.4-99.5%)。pct引导抗生素算法实施的益处不能基于小样本量来确定,从而缺乏内部有效性。未来的研究需要使用DOOR/RADAR来评估烧伤患者群体的抗生素管理策略。
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
Annals of burns and fire disasters
Annals of burns and fire disasters Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: "Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters" is the official publication of the Euro-Mediterranean Council for Burns and Fire Disasters (MBC) and the European Burns Association (EBA). It is a peer-reviewed journal directed to an audience of medical as well as paramedical personnel involved in the management of burn injuries. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research, scientific advances. It publishes also selected abstracts from international journals.
×
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