Evidence Hub

Adequacy of empiric gram-negative coverage for septic patients at an academic medical center

Vaughan D, Pakyz A, Stevens M, Lee K, Bernard S

American journal of infection control, 2019

219 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative organisms (GNOs) have increasing resistance rates to levofloxacin at Virginia Commonwealth University Health System (VCUHS), where levofloxacin is the most common agent added to provide double coverage of gram-negative infections. The goal of this study was to determine the adequacy of empiric gram-negative coverage for septic patients at our institution.

METHODS: A retrospective review of patients admitted to VCUHS, from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, with a diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock and documented infection, was performed to determine the adequacy of various empiric antibiotic combinations.

RESULTS: Of 219 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 56% of patients received monotherapy and 21% of patients received combination therapy (2 antibiotics) covering GNOs. GNOs (84%) were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam. When used in combination with cefepime and meropenem, levofloxacin did not increase coverage. However, levofloxacin provided an 8% increase in coverage and gentamicin provided an additional 13% increase in coverage, respectively, when used in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam.

CONCLUSIONS: Among septic patients at VCUHS, gentamicin provided increased gram-negative coverage when compared with levofloxacin. Although susceptibility to piperacillin-tazobactam alone was relatively low, the combination of piperacillin-tazobactam and gentamicin provided nearly equivalent coverage to meropenem and…

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. Reported size: 219 participants or records.

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