Prior influenza vaccine is not a risk factor for bacterial coinfection in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe influenza

10 páginasObjective To determine whether the prior usage of the flu vaccine is a risk factor for bacterial co-infection in patients with severe influenza. Design This was a retrospective observational cohort study of subjects admitted to the ICU. A propensity score matching, and logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders were carried out to evaluate the association between prior influenza vaccination and bacterial co-infection. Settings 184 ICUs in Spain due to severe influenza. Patients Patients included in the Spanish prospective flu registry. Interventions Flu vaccine prior to the hospital admission. Results A total of 4175 subjects were included in the study. 489 (11.7%) received the flu vaccine prior to develop influenza infection. Prior vaccinated patients were older 71 [61–78], and predominantly male 65.4%, with at least one comorbid condition 88.5%. Prior vaccination was not associated with bacterial co-infection in the logistic regression model (OR: 1.017; 95%CI 0.803–1.288; p = 0.885). After matching, the average treatment effect of prior influenza vaccine on bacterial co-infection was not statistically significant when assessed by propensity score matching ( p = 0.87), nearest neighbor matching ( p = 0.59) and inverse probability weighting ( p = 0.99). Conclusions No association was identified between prior influenza vaccine and bacterial coinfection in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe influenza. Post influenza vaccination studies are necessary to continue evaluating the possible benefits.Objetivo Determinar si el uso previo de la vacuna antigripal es un factor de riesgo para coinfección bacteriana en pacientes con influenza grave. Diseño Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional retrospectivo de sujetos ingresados en la UCI. Se realizó un emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión y una regresión logística ajustada para posibles factores de confusión para evaluar la asociación entre el antecedente de vacunación contra la gripe y la coinfección bacteriana. Ámbito Ciento ochenta y cuatro ingresos en UCI españolas por gripe grave. Pacientes Pacientes incluidos en el registro prospectivo español de gripe. Intervenciones Vacuna antigripal previa al ingreso hospitalario. Resultados Se incluyó en el estudio un total de 4.175 sujetos. Recibieron la vacuna contra la influenza antes de desarrollar la infección por influenza 489 (11,7%). Los pacientes previamente vacunados eran mayores de 71 años (RIC 61-78), predominantemente varones (65,4%) y con al menos una condición comórbida (88,5%). La vacunación previa no se asoció con la coinfección bacteriana en el modelo de regresión logística (OR: 1,017; IC95% 0,803-1,288; p = 0,885). Después del emparejamiento, el efecto promedio del tratamiento del antecedente de vacuna contra la influenza sobre la coinfección bacteriana no fue estadísticamente significativo cuando se evaluó mediante el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión (p = 0,87), por emparejamiento del vecino más cercano (p = 0,59) y mediante la ponderación de probabilidad inversa (p = 0,99). Conclusiones No se identificó asociación entre el antecedente de vacuna antigripal y coinfección bacteriana en pacientes ingresados en UCI por influenza severa. Más estudios para evaluar los efectos de la vacunación contra la gripe son necesarios para continuar evaluando los posibles beneficios

Early oseltamivir treatment improves survival in critically ill patients with influenza pneumonia

11 páginasBackground: The relationship between early oseltamivir treatment (within 48 h of symptom onset) and mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with severe influenza is disputed. This study aimed to investigate the association between early oseltamivir treatment and ICU mortality in critically ill patients with influenza pneumonia. Methods: This was an observational study of patients with influenza pneumonia admitted to 184 ICUs in Spain during 2009–2018. The primary outcome was to evaluate the association between early oseltamivir treatment and ICU mortality compared with later treatment. Secondary outcomes were to compare the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay between the early and later oseltamivir treatment groups. To reduce biases related to observational studies, propensity score matching and a competing risk analysis were performed. Results: During the study period, 2124 patients met the inclusion criteria. All patients had influenza pneumonia and received oseltamivir before ICU admission. Of these, 529 (24.9%) received early oseltamivir treatment. In the multivariate analysis, early treatment was associated with reduced ICU mortality (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51–0.95). After propensity score matching, early oseltamivir treatment was associated with improved survival rates in the Cox regression (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.99) and competing risk (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.53–0.85) analyses. The ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation were shorter in patients receiving early treatment. Conclusions: Early oseltamivir treatment is associated with improved survival rates in critically ill patients with influenza pneumonia, and may decrease ICU length of stay and mechanical ventilation duration

Infections, antibiotic treatment and mortality in patients admitted to ICUs in countries considered to have high levels of antibiotic resistance compared to those with low levels

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing concern in ICUs worldwide. Infection with an antibiotic resistant (ABR) strain of an organism is associated with greater mortality than infection with the non-resistant strain, but there are few data assessing whether being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with high levels of antimicrobial resistance is associated with a worse outcome than being admitted to an ICU with low rates of resistance. The aim of this study was, therefore, to compare the characteristics of infections and antibiotic treatments and patient outcomes in patients admitted to ICUs in countries considered as having high levels of antibiotic resistance and those admitted to ICUs in countries considered as having low levels of antibiotic resistance.Methods: Data from the large, international EPIC II one-day point prevalence study on infections in patients hospitalized in ICUs were used. For the current study, we compared the data obtained from patients from two groups of countries: countries with reported MRSA rates of ≥ 25% (highABR: Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey) and countries with MRSA rates of < 5% (lowABR: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden).Results: On the study day, 1187/2204 (53.9%) patients in the HighABR ICUs were infected and 255/558 (45.7%) in the LowABR ICUs (P < 0.01). Patients in the HighABR ICUs were more severely ill than those in the LowABR ICUs, as reflected by a higher SAPS II score (35.6 vs 32.7, P < 0.05) and had longer median ICU (12 days vs 5 days) and hospital (24 days vs 16 days) lengths of stay. They also had higher crude ICU (20.0% vs 15.4%) and hospital (27.0% vs 21.5%) mortality rates (both P < 0.05). However, after multivariable adjustment and matched pair analysis there were no differences in ICU or hospital mortality rates between High or LowABR ICU patients overall or among those with infections.Conclusions: Being hospitalized in an ICU in a region with high levels of antimicrobial resistance is not associated per se with a worse outcome. © 2014 Hanberger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Infections, antibiotic treatment and mortality in patients admitted to ICUs in countries considered to have high levels of antibiotic resistance compared to those with low levels

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing concern in ICUs worldwide. Infection with an antibiotic resistant (ABR) strain of an organism is associated with greater mortality than infection with the non-resistant strain, but there are few data assessing whether being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with high levels of antimicrobial resistance is associated with a worse outcome than being admitted to an ICU with low rates of resistance. The aim of this study was, therefore, to compare the characteristics of infections and antibiotic treatments and patient outcomes in patients admitted to ICUs in countries considered as having high levels of antibiotic resistance and those admitted to ICUs in countries considered as having low levels of antibiotic resistance. Methods: Data from the large, international EPIC II one-day point prevalence study on infections in patients hospitalized in ICUs were used. For the current study, we compared the data obtained from patients from two groups of countries: countries with reported MRSA rates of greater than= 25% (highABR: Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey) and countries with MRSA rates of less than 5% (lowABR: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). Results: On the study day, 1187/2204 (53.9%) patients in the HighABR ICUs were infected and 255/558 (45.7%) in the LowABR ICUs (P less than 0.01). Patients in the HighABR ICUs were more severely ill than those in the LowABR ICUs, as reflected by a higher SAPS II score (35.6 vs 32.7, P less than 0.05) and had longer median ICU (12 days vs 5 days) and hospital (24 days vs 16 days) lengths of stay. They also had higher crude ICU (20.0% vs 15.4%) and hospital (27.0% vs 21.5%) mortality rates (both P less than 0.05). However, after multivariable adjustment and matched pair analysis there were no differences in ICU or hospital mortality rates between High or LowABR ICU patients overall or among those with infections. Conclusions: Being hospitalized in an ICU in a region with high levels of antimicrobial resistance is not associated per se with a worse outcome

Infections, antibiotic treatment and mortality in patients admitted to ICUs in countries considered to have high levels of antibiotic resistance compared to those with low levels

Scopu

Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To provide a global, up-to-date picture of the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients and compare Candida with bacterial bloodstream infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in the ICU Study (EPIC II). Demographic, physiological, infection-related and therapeutic data were collected. Patients were grouped as having Candida, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and combined Candida/bacterial bloodstream infection. Outcome data were assessed at intensive care unit and hospital discharge. SETTING: EPIC II included 1265 intensive care units in 76 countries. PATIENTS: Patients in participating intensive care units on study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 14,414 patients in EPIC II, 99 patients had Candida bloodstream infections for a prevalence of 6.9 per 1000 patients. Sixty-one patients had candidemia alone and 38 patients had combined bloodstream infections. Candida albicans (n = 70) was the predominant species. Primary therapy included monotherapy with fluconazole (n = 39), caspofungin (n = 16), and a polyene-based product (n = 12). Combination therapy was infrequently used (n = 10). Compared with patients with Gram-positive (n = 420) and Gram-negative (n = 264) bloodstream infections, patients with candidemia were more likely to have solid tumors (p < .05) and appeared to have been in an intensive care unit longer (14 days [range, 5-25 days], 8 days [range, 3-20 days], and 10 days [range, 2-23 days], respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scores were similar between groups. Patients with Candida bloodstream infections, compared with patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bloodstream infections, had the greatest crude intensive care unit mortality rates (42.6%, 25.3%, and 29.1%, respectively) and longer intensive care unit lengths of stay (median [interquartile range]) (33 days [18-44], 20 days [9-43], and 21 days [8-46], respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Candidemia remains a significant problem in intensive care units patients. In the EPIC II population, Candida albicans was the most common organism and fluconazole remained the predominant antifungal agent used. Candida bloodstream infections are associated with high intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates and resource use