Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):329-36.

Comparison of antimicrobial cycling and mixing strategies in two medical intensive care units.

Author information

  • 1Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS -University of Barcelona, Spain. jamarti@clinic.ub.es

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare a mixing vs. a cycling strategy of use of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotics on the acquisition of resistant Gram-negative bacilli in the critical care setting.

DESIGN:

Prospective, open, comparative study of two strategies of antibiotic use.

SETTING:

Two medical intensive care units of a university hospital.

PATIENTS:

A total of 346 patients admitted for >or=48 hrs to two separate medical intensive care units during an 8-month period.

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients, who according to the attending physician's judgment required an anti-Pseudomonas regimen, were assigned to receive cefepime/ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, a carbapemen, or piperacillin-tazobactam in this order. "Cycling" was accomplished by prescribing one of these antibiotics during 1 month each. "Mixing" was accomplished by using the same order of antibiotic administration on consecutive patients. Interventions were carried out during two successive 4-month periods, starting with mixing in one unit and cycling in the other.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

Swabbing of nares, pharynx, and rectum and culture of respiratory secretions were obtained thrice weekly. The main outcome variable was the proportion of patients acquiring enteric or nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli resistant to the antibiotics under intervention. The scheduled cycling of antibiotics was only partially successful. Although the expected antibiotic was the most prevalent anti-Pseudomonas agent used within the corresponding period, it never accounted for >45% of all anti-Pseudomonas antimicrobials administered. During mixing, a significantly higher proportion of patients acquired a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to cefepime (9% vs. 3%, p = .01), and there was a trend toward a more frequent acquisition of resistance to ceftazidime (p = .06), imipenem (p = .06), and meropenem (p = .07). No differences in the rate of acquisition of potentially resistant Gram-negative bacilli or incidence of intensive care unit-acquired infections and infections due to particular organisms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

In critically ill medical patients, a strategy of monthly rotation of anti-Pseudomonas beta-lactams and ciprofloxacin may perform better than a strategy of mixing in the acquisition of P. aeruginosa resistant to selected beta-lactams.

PMID:
16424711
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk