» Articles » PMID: 36959425

Efficacy of Carbapenem Vs Non carbapenem β-lactam Therapy As Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients with Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales Urinary Septic Shock: a Propensity-weighted Multicenter Cohort Study

Abstract

Background: The rise in antimicrobial resistance is a global threat responsible for about 33,000 deaths in 2015 with a particular concern for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) and has led to a major increase in the use of carbapenems, last-resort antibiotics.

Methods: In this retrospective propensity-weighted multicenter observational study conducted in 11 ICUs, the purpose was to assess the efficacy of non carbapenem regimen (piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) + aminoglycosides or 3rd-generation cephalosporin (3GC) + aminoglycosides) as empiric therapy in comparison with carbapenem in extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) urinary septic shock. The primary outcome was Day-30 mortality.

Results: Among 156 patients included in this study, 69 received a carbapenem and 87 received non carbapenem antibiotics as empiric treatment. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients who received carbapenem had similar Day-30 mortality (10/69 (15%) vs 6/87 (7%), OR = 1.99 [0.55; 5.34] p = 0.16), illness severity, resolution of septic shock, and ESBL-E infection recurrence rates than patients who received an empiric non carbapenem therapy. The rates of secondary infection with C. difficile were comparable.

Conclusions: In ESBL-E urinary septic shock, empiric treatment with a non carbapenem regimen, including systematically aminoglycosides, was not associated with higher mortality, compared to a carbapenem regimen.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of empiric carbapenem versus non-carbapenem therapy for extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales infections in non-intensive care unit patients: a real-world investigation in a hospital with high-prevalence of....

Kang A, Elkomos M, Pham D, Guerrero M, Kupferwasser D, Miller L Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2024; 4(1):e100.

PMID: 38836043 PMC: 11149041. DOI: 10.1017/ash.2024.88.

References
1.
Quenot J, Binquet C, Kara F, Martinet O, Ganster F, Navellou J . The epidemiology of septic shock in French intensive care units: the prospective multicenter cohort EPISS study. Crit Care. 2013; 17(2):R65. PMC: 4056892. DOI: 10.1186/cc12598. View

2.
Zohar I, Schwartz O, Yossepowitch O, Shapiro Ben David S, Maor Y . Aminoglycoside versus carbapenem or piperacillin/tazobactam treatment for bloodstream infections of urinary source caused by Gram-negative ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019; 75(2):458-465. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkz457. View

3.
Sharara S, Amoah J, Pana Z, Simner P, Cosgrove S, Tamma P . Is Piperacillin-Tazobactam Effective for the Treatment of Pyelonephritis Caused by Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Organisms?. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 71(8):e331-e337. PMC: 7643734. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1205. View

4.
Tansarli G, Karageorgopoulos D, Kapaskelis A, Falagas M . Impact of antimicrobial multidrug resistance on inpatient care cost: an evaluation of the evidence. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2013; 11(3):321-31. DOI: 10.1586/eri.13.4. View

5.
Pilmis B, Jullien V, Tabah A, Zahar J, Brun-Buisson C . Piperacillin-tazobactam as alternative to carbapenems for ICU patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2017; 7(1):113. PMC: 5681454. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-017-0334-x. View