Compatibility of prolonged infusion antibiotics during Y-site administration

[Background] Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to global public health. The use of prolonged infusions in the hospital setting for certain antimicrobials is widely increasing in order to improve their efficacy and safety, including resistance development. Due to limited vascular access, it is important to clarify whether they can be infused through the same line with other drugs during Y-site administration.[Aim] The aim of this review is to update and summarize the evidence on Y-site compatibility of antibacterial agents administered as prolonged infusions in intensive care units (ICUs). Study Design A literature review of PubMed, EMBASE and Trissel's Handbook on Injectable Drugs databases was conducted on the compatibility of selected antimicrobials administered simultaneously at a Y-site connection with parenteral nutrition and other widely used drugs in ICUs. All articles published up to October 30, 2021, in English or Spanish were included, regardless of the type of publication (original articles, case reports, letters, etc.). Eligible antimicrobials were those that can be administered as prolonged infusions: ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftaroline, cloxacillin, ceftobiprole, vancomycin and fosfomycin.[Results] A total of 1302 drug-to-drug potential combinations were explored, 196 (15.05%) were found to be incompatible, and in 541 (41.55%), data were not available. The results were presented in a simple 2-dimensional consultation chart as a quick reference for health care professionals.[Conclusions] This review provides useful and reliable information on the compatibility of antimicrobials administered as Y-site infusion with other drugs commonly used in the critical setting. This review contributes to patient safety in nursing practice. Relevance to Clinical Practice To our knowledge, this is the first review on Y-site compatibility of antimicrobials used as prolonged infusions with other commonly used drugs, including anti-emetics, analgesics and anti-epileptic and parenteral nutrition. The results of the current review need to be addressed to promote the knowledge sharing between health professionals and improve the quality and safety of patients. We believe that this review may serve as a simple and effective 2-dimensional updated drug-to-drug compatibility reference chart for critical care nurses.Peer reviewe

Analysis of quality antimicrobial agent use in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital

[Objetivo] Describir los factores modificables relacionados con el tratamiento antimicrobiano (TA) inadecuado en el área de observación de urgencias (AOU), que se puedan constituir en dianas de intervención para un programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) específico en el servicio de urgencias (SU).[Métodos] Estudio transversal de puntos de prevalencia seriados (PPS) de todas las prescripciones antimicrobianas de los pacientes ingresados en el AOU de febrero a marzo de 2015. La variable principal fue la inadecuación del TA evaluada en base a la guía local de referencia por dos evaluadores.[Resultados] Se analizaron 406 TA. Los principales síndromes clínicos encontrados fueron: neumonía (24%), infecciones urinarias (22%) e infecciones del tracto respiratorio inferior no neumónicas (22%). El 51,5% de los TA fue inadecuado. La falta de obtención de muestras microbiológicas antes del TA (61%), no describir el «foco infeccioso» en la historia clínica del paciente (73%) y la ausencia de criterios de sepsis (58%) se asociaron a un TA inadecuado.[Conclusiones] El TA adecuado fue inferior al 50%. La presentación grave del cuadro infeccioso, el registro del foco en la historia clínica y la obtención de muestras microbiológicas se relacionaban independientemente con una mejor calidad en la prescripción antimicrobiana. Estos factores pueden constituir dianas para el desarrollo de un PROA específico en el SU.[Objective] To describe modifiable factors related to inappropriate antimicrobial treatment in the observation area of an emergency department to explore practices that can be targeted for change through a program to improve emergency use of antimicrobial agents, the PROA program in its spanish observations.[Methods] Cross-sectional serial point-prevalence study of all antimicrobial prescriptions for patients under observation in the department in February and March 2015.The main outcome measure was the frequency of antimicrobial treatment that was inappropriate according the center’s guidelines. Two evaluators assessed appropriateness.[Results] We analyzed 406 antimicrobial treatments. The main clinical syndromes were pneumonia (24%), urinary infections (22%), and nonpneumonia lower respiratory infections (22%). We found that 51.5% of the antimicrobial treatments were inappropriate. Factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions were a failure to analyze microbiologic samples before treating (61%), failure to specify the focus of infection in the case records (73%), and failure to meet the definition of sepsis (58%).[Conclusions] Fewer than half the antimicrobial treatments were appropriate as prescribed. Signs of serious infection, specification of the focus of infection in the patient’s records, and the analysis of biologic samples were independent predictors of quality care (appropriate antimicrobial prescription). These factors can be targeted for training in the development of a specific emergency department program to improve this aspect of care.Artículo financiado por el Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013‐2016, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI RD12/0015/0010 and REIPI RD16/0016/0001) y co-financiado por el Fondo Regional Europeo “A way to achieve Europe, Operative Programme Intelligent Growth 2014‐2020”.Peer reviewe

Predictors of inappropriate antimicrobial prescription: Eight-year point prevalence surveys experience in a third level hospital in Spain.

Antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP) have already demonstrated clinical benefits. We aimed to describe the Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) methodology implemented in our hospital as an efficient tool to guide ASP strategies. Annually repeated PPS were conducted from 2012 to 2019 at a 750-bed university hospital in South Spain. Key quality indicators and inappropriateness of antimicrobial treatment, defined strictly according to local guidelines, were described. Variables associated with inappropriate treatment were identified by bi/multivariable analysis. A total of 1,600 patients were included. We found that 49% of the prescriptions were inappropriate due to unnecessary treatment (14%), not first line drug recommended (14%), inadequate drug according to microbiological results (9%), unsuitable doses (8%), route (3%) or duration (7%). Samples collection presented a significant protective effect together with sepsis presentation at onset and intensive care unit admission. However, age, receiving an empirical treatment and an unknown or urinary source of the infections treated were independent risk factors for inappropriateness. Site and severity of infection were documented in medical charts by prescribers (75 and 61% respectively). PPS may allow identifying the main risk factors for inappropriateness. This simple methodology may be useful for ASP to select modifiable factors to be prioritized for targeted interventions