Evidence Hub

Impact of inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment on clinical outcomes of urinary tract infections caused by Escherichia coli: a retrospective cohort study

Hongying Zhu, Yanhui Chen, Y. Hang, Hong Luo, Xueyao Fang, Yanping Xiao, Xingwei Cao, Shan Zou et al.

Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 2021

32 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the clinical impact of inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment (IEAT) compared with appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment (AEAT) in hospitalised patients with urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by Escherichia coli (E. coli).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with a primary diagnosis of UTI who were treated with empirical antibiotics at a tertiary hospital in southern China over a 2-year period. The clinical data of patients who received IEAT were compared with those of the patients receiving AEAT. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify the predictors for receiving IEAT and the risk factors affecting the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled (median age, 61 years). Of these patients, 103 (48.4%) received IEAT. IEAT was associated with the empirical use of fluoroquinolones, male sex, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (aCCI) score >6. The length of stay (LOS) was longer for patients who received IEAT than for those who received AEAT (13.6 ± 8.6 d vs 10.8 ± 7.9 d; P = 0.008). IEAT was an independent risk factor for longer LOS along with aCCI score ≥2, lung disease and cardiac disease.

CONCLUSION

Empirical use of fluoroquinolones for UTIs should be avoided, especially in male patients with aCCI score >6. Improved empirical antimicrobial therapy may have a beneficial impact on reducing bacterial resistance and health-care costs by decreasing the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free