Jannik Stemler, Eleni Gavriilaki, Oksana Hlukhareva, Nina Khanna, Dionysios Neofytos, Murat Akova, Livio Pagano, José-Miguel Cisneros, Oliver A Cornely, Jon Salmanton-García
{"title":"高危血液病患者筛查和抗菌预防革兰氏阴性菌感染的当前做法：泛欧调查的结果。","authors":"Jannik Stemler, Eleni Gavriilaki, Oksana Hlukhareva, Nina Khanna, Dionysios Neofytos, Murat Akova, Livio Pagano, José-Miguel Cisneros, Oliver A Cornely, Jon Salmanton-García","doi":"10.1177/20499361241271863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional observational survey study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for <i>E. coli</i> (10% vs 7%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (10% vs 5%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR <i>E. coli</i> (5% vs 3%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (5% vs 3%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.</p>","PeriodicalId":46154,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey.\",\"authors\":\"Jannik Stemler, Eleni Gavriilaki, Oksana Hlukhareva, Nina Khanna, Dionysios Neofytos, Murat Akova, Livio Pagano, José-Miguel Cisneros, Oliver A Cornely, Jon Salmanton-García\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20499361241271863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional observational survey study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for <i>E. coli</i> (10% vs 7%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (10% vs 5%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR <i>E. coli</i> (5% vs 3%) <i>Klebsiella</i> spp. (5% vs 3%), and <i>Pseudomonas</i> spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528667/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361241271863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361241271863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Current practice of screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in high-risk haematology patients: results from a pan-European survey.
Background: Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.
Objective: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.
Methods: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.
Results: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for E. coli (10% vs 7%) Klebsiella spp. (10% vs 5%), and Pseudomonas spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR E. coli (5% vs 3%) Klebsiella spp. (5% vs 3%), and Pseudomonas spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.
Conclusion: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
