新生儿重症监护病房使用头孢他啶与头孢他肟培养阳性晚发型脓毒症的发生率比较

Jenna Salter, Van Tran, David Bastawrous, Andrew Nuibe
{"title":"新生儿重症监护病房使用头孢他啶与头孢他肟培养阳性晚发型脓毒症的发生率比较","authors":"Jenna Salter, Van Tran, David Bastawrous, Andrew Nuibe","doi":"10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE As broader spectrum antibiotics have been associated with adverse effects, our study evaluated whether the frequency of culture-positive late-onset sepsis (LOS) and multidrug resistant (MDR) infections were increased with the use of ceftazidime as compared with cefotaxime in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS This was a multihospital, retrospective chart review of patients who received at least 24 hours of ceftazidime or cefotaxime in the NICU between December 1, 2012 and August 31, 2021. Patients were excluded from analysis if they expired during the admission, had an incomplete history, positive cultures for an MDR infection prior to receiving either antibiotic, or received the alternate antibiotic within the same treatment course. RESULTS A total of 334 patients were included for analysis (ceftazidime, n = 147; cefotaxime, n = 187). The average birth weight was lower in the ceftazidime cohort compared with the cefotaxime cohort [1.46 kg (95% CI, 1.29–1.63 kg) versus 1.93 kg (95% CI, 1.75–2.11 kg), p = 0.0002] with a corresponding lower gestational age [28.9 weeks (95% CI, 28.0–29.9 weeks) versus 31.7 weeks (95% CI, 30.8–32.6 weeks), p = 0.0001]. Adjusting for baseline differences showed a protective effect for ceftazidime (OR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.62; p = 0.0009). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of MDR infections between the cohorts (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.053–1.14; p = 0.07), however this study was underpowered to detect the difference noted. CONCLUSIONS Ceftazidime appears to be a safe and effective alternative treatment option compared with cefotaxime in the NICU with no increase in the risk of culture-positive LOS or MDR infections.","PeriodicalId":22794,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Frequency of Culture-Positive Late Onset Sepsis With the Use of Ceftazidime Versus Cefotaxime in the NICU\",\"authors\":\"Jenna Salter, Van Tran, David Bastawrous, Andrew Nuibe\",\"doi\":\"10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE As broader spectrum antibiotics have been associated with adverse effects, our study evaluated whether the frequency of culture-positive late-onset sepsis (LOS) and multidrug resistant (MDR) infections were increased with the use of ceftazidime as compared with cefotaxime in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS This was a multihospital, retrospective chart review of patients who received at least 24 hours of ceftazidime or cefotaxime in the NICU between December 1, 2012 and August 31, 2021. Patients were excluded from analysis if they expired during the admission, had an incomplete history, positive cultures for an MDR infection prior to receiving either antibiotic, or received the alternate antibiotic within the same treatment course. RESULTS A total of 334 patients were included for analysis (ceftazidime, n = 147; cefotaxime, n = 187). The average birth weight was lower in the ceftazidime cohort compared with the cefotaxime cohort [1.46 kg (95% CI, 1.29–1.63 kg) versus 1.93 kg (95% CI, 1.75–2.11 kg), p = 0.0002] with a corresponding lower gestational age [28.9 weeks (95% CI, 28.0–29.9 weeks) versus 31.7 weeks (95% CI, 30.8–32.6 weeks), p = 0.0001]. Adjusting for baseline differences showed a protective effect for ceftazidime (OR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.62; p = 0.0009). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of MDR infections between the cohorts (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.053–1.14; p = 0.07), however this study was underpowered to detect the difference noted. CONCLUSIONS Ceftazidime appears to be a safe and effective alternative treatment option compared with cefotaxime in the NICU with no increase in the risk of culture-positive LOS or MDR infections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于广谱抗生素与不良反应相关,我们的研究评估了在新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)使用头孢他啶与使用头孢噻肟相比,是否会增加培养阳性的迟发性脓毒症(LOS)和多药耐药(MDR)感染的频率。方法:对2012年12月1日至2021年8月31日期间在NICU接受至少24小时头孢他啶或头孢噻肟治疗的患者进行多医院回顾性图表回顾。如果患者在入院期间死亡,病史不完整,在接受抗生素治疗前耐多药感染培养呈阳性,或在同一疗程内接受替代抗生素治疗,则将患者排除在分析之外。结果共纳入334例患者(头孢他啶,n = 147;头孢噻肟,n = 187)。头孢他啶组的平均出生体重低于头孢噻肟组[1.46 kg (95% CI, 1.29-1.63 kg)比1.93 kg (95% CI, 1.75-2.11 kg), p = 0.0002],相应的胎龄也较低[28.9周(95% CI, 28.0-29.9周)比31.7周(95% CI, 30.8-32.6周),p = 0.0001]。调整基线差异显示头孢他啶具有保护作用(OR = 0.32;95% ci, 0.16-0.62;P = 0.0009)。两组间耐多药感染的频率差异无统计学意义(OR = 0.25;95% ci, 0.053-1.14;P = 0.07),然而,本研究不足以检测到所注意到的差异。结论:与头孢噻肟相比,头孢他啶在新生儿重症监护病房似乎是一种安全有效的替代治疗选择,未增加培养阳性LOS或耐多药感染的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Frequency of Culture-Positive Late Onset Sepsis With the Use of Ceftazidime Versus Cefotaxime in the NICU
OBJECTIVE As broader spectrum antibiotics have been associated with adverse effects, our study evaluated whether the frequency of culture-positive late-onset sepsis (LOS) and multidrug resistant (MDR) infections were increased with the use of ceftazidime as compared with cefotaxime in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS This was a multihospital, retrospective chart review of patients who received at least 24 hours of ceftazidime or cefotaxime in the NICU between December 1, 2012 and August 31, 2021. Patients were excluded from analysis if they expired during the admission, had an incomplete history, positive cultures for an MDR infection prior to receiving either antibiotic, or received the alternate antibiotic within the same treatment course. RESULTS A total of 334 patients were included for analysis (ceftazidime, n = 147; cefotaxime, n = 187). The average birth weight was lower in the ceftazidime cohort compared with the cefotaxime cohort [1.46 kg (95% CI, 1.29–1.63 kg) versus 1.93 kg (95% CI, 1.75–2.11 kg), p = 0.0002] with a corresponding lower gestational age [28.9 weeks (95% CI, 28.0–29.9 weeks) versus 31.7 weeks (95% CI, 30.8–32.6 weeks), p = 0.0001]. Adjusting for baseline differences showed a protective effect for ceftazidime (OR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.62; p = 0.0009). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of MDR infections between the cohorts (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.053–1.14; p = 0.07), however this study was underpowered to detect the difference noted. CONCLUSIONS Ceftazidime appears to be a safe and effective alternative treatment option compared with cefotaxime in the NICU with no increase in the risk of culture-positive LOS or MDR infections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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