Evidence Hub

Determinants of empirical antipseudomonal antibiotic prescription for adults with pneumonia in the emergency department

Angrill N, Gallego M, Font J, Vallés J, Morón A, Monsó E, Rello J

BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020

549 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Background Antipseudomonal antibiotics should be restricted to patients at risk of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. However, the indications in different guidelines on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are discordant. Our objectives were to assess the prevalence of antipseudomonal antibiotic prescriptions and to identify determinants of empirical antibiotic choices in the emergency department. Methods Observational, retrospective, one-year cohort study in hospitalized adults with pneumonia. Antibiotic choices and clinical and demographic data were recorded on a standardized form. Antibiotics with antipseudomonal activity were classified into two groups: a) β-lactam antipseudomonals (β-APS), including carbapenems, piperacillin / tazobactam or cefepime (in monotherapy or combination) and b) monotherapy with antipseudomonal quinolones. Results Data were recorded from 549 adults with pneumonia, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa being isolated in only nine (1.6%). Most (85%) prescriptions were compliant with SEPAR guidelines and 207 (37%) patients received antibiotics with antipseudomonal activity (14% β-APS and 23% levofloxacin). The use of β-APS was independently associated with ICU admission (OR 8.16 95% CI 3.69–18.06) and prior hospitalization (OR 6.76 95% CI 3.02–15.15), while levofloxacin was associated with negative pneumococcal urine antigen tests (OR 3.41 95% CI 1.70–6.85) but negatively associated with ICU admission (OR 0.26 95% CI 0.08–0.86). None of these factors were…

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: 549 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