Comparison Between the Combination Therapy in Terms of Therapeutic Effectiveness and Anti-Microbial Efficacy in Extensive Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Infections

N. Parveen, Rana Imran Sikander, Muhammad Zeeshan, S. M. Muneeb Ali, Muhammad Hassan
{"title":"Comparison Between the Combination Therapy in Terms of Therapeutic Effectiveness and Anti-Microbial Efficacy in Extensive Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii Infections","authors":"N. Parveen, Rana Imran Sikander, Muhammad Zeeshan, S. M. Muneeb Ali, Muhammad Hassan","doi":"10.37185/lns.1.1.312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of a triple-antibiotic regimen (Colistin, Cefoperazone/Sulbactam, and Tigecycline) with a double-antibiotic regimen (Colistin and Minocycline) for treating drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections in critically ill patients.Study Design:  A comparative cross-sectional study design.Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted at the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan from April 2022 to October 2022.Materials and Methods: A total of 38 patients aged 18-70 years admitted to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad gave consent to participate in the study. Any patient having a culture-proven polymicrobial infection was excluded. A total of 20 patients were allocated to Group A (triple-antibiotic regimen) and 18 patients to Group B (double-antibiotic regimen). Vital statistics were recorded daily, while laboratory-based biochemical markers (leucocyte count, CRP, lactate, procalcitonin) were recorded every 48 hours for ten days. Antimicrobial efficacy was assessed by a culture analysis on the 10th day.Results: There were 20 patients in Group A and 18 in Group B. There were 32 patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), and six with bloodstream infection. No significant difference in the vitals and lab markers were found between the two groups. The only exception was serum lactate levels, which were significantly higher Group A (34.03 + 28.37 mg/dL), compared to Group B (16.11 + 15.63 mg/dL; p = 0.024). Group A therapy was also found to have significantly improved antimicrobial efficacy in terms of positive-culture results (n=4, 20%) compared to Group B (n=10, 55.6%; p = 0.023).Conclusion: The triple-antibiotic regimen had better antimicrobial efficacy than the double-antibiotic regimen for treating Acinetobacter baumannii-related infections.","PeriodicalId":15254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biology and Life Science","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biology and Life Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37185/lns.1.1.312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of a triple-antibiotic regimen (Colistin, Cefoperazone/Sulbactam, and Tigecycline) with a double-antibiotic regimen (Colistin and Minocycline) for treating drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections in critically ill patients.Study Design:  A comparative cross-sectional study design.Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted at the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan from April 2022 to October 2022.Materials and Methods: A total of 38 patients aged 18-70 years admitted to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad gave consent to participate in the study. Any patient having a culture-proven polymicrobial infection was excluded. A total of 20 patients were allocated to Group A (triple-antibiotic regimen) and 18 patients to Group B (double-antibiotic regimen). Vital statistics were recorded daily, while laboratory-based biochemical markers (leucocyte count, CRP, lactate, procalcitonin) were recorded every 48 hours for ten days. Antimicrobial efficacy was assessed by a culture analysis on the 10th day.Results: There were 20 patients in Group A and 18 in Group B. There were 32 patients with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), and six with bloodstream infection. No significant difference in the vitals and lab markers were found between the two groups. The only exception was serum lactate levels, which were significantly higher Group A (34.03 + 28.37 mg/dL), compared to Group B (16.11 + 15.63 mg/dL; p = 0.024). Group A therapy was also found to have significantly improved antimicrobial efficacy in terms of positive-culture results (n=4, 20%) compared to Group B (n=10, 55.6%; p = 0.023).Conclusion: The triple-antibiotic regimen had better antimicrobial efficacy than the double-antibiotic regimen for treating Acinetobacter baumannii-related infections.
广泛耐药鲍曼不动杆菌感染联合治疗的疗效及抗菌效果比较
目的:比较三抗生素方案(粘菌素、头孢哌酮/舒巴坦、替加环素)与双抗生素方案(粘菌素、米诺环素)治疗耐药危重患者鲍曼不动杆菌感染的临床及抗菌效果。研究设计:比较横断面研究设计。研究地点和时间:研究于2022年4月至2022年10月在巴基斯坦伊斯兰堡巴基斯坦医学科学研究所(PIMS)的医学重症监护病房(ICU)进行。材料和方法:共有38名18-70岁的患者在伊斯兰堡巴基斯坦医学科学研究所重症监护病房(ICU)住院,同意参加本研究。排除任何有培养证实的多微生物感染的患者。A组(三抗生素治疗方案)20例,B组(双抗生素治疗方案)18例。每天记录生命统计数据,每48小时记录一次实验室生化指标(白细胞计数、CRP、乳酸、降钙素原),持续10天。第10天通过培养分析评估抗菌效果。结果:A组20例,b组18例,其中呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP) 32例,血流感染6例。两组在生命体征和实验室指标上无显著差异。唯一例外是血清乳酸水平,A组(34.03 + 28.37 mg/dL)显著高于B组(16.11 + 15.63 mg/dL);P = 0.024)。与B组(n=10, 55.6%)相比,A组治疗在阳性培养结果(n=4, 20%)方面也显着提高了抗菌效果;P = 0.023)。结论:三联抗生素方案治疗鲍曼不动杆菌相关感染的抗菌效果优于双联抗生素方案。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信