» Articles » PMID: 39493728

Current Practice of Screening and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis to Prevent Gram-negative Bacterial Infection in High-risk Haematology Patients: Results from a Pan-European Survey

Abstract

Background: Bacterial infections frequently occur in haematological patients, especially during prolonged neutropenia after intensive chemotherapy, often leading to bloodstream infections and pneumonia.

Objective: Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for high-risk haematology patients is still debated while prevalence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) is rising globally. We aimed to assess the current practice of AMP in this population.

Design: Cross-sectional observational survey study.

Methods: Haematologists and infectious diseases physicians Europewide were invited to an online survey including questions on routine screening for GNB, incidence of MDR-GNB colonization, antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, rates of bloodstream infections (BSI), ICU admission and mortality differentiated by infections due to GNB versus MDR-GNB.

Results: 120 haematology centres from 28 countries participated. Screening for MDR-GNB is performed in 86.7% of centres, mostly via rectal swabs (58.3%). In 39.2% of routine AMP is used, mostly with fluoroquinolones. Estimates of GNB-BSI yielded higher rates in patients not receiving anti-GNB prophylaxis than in those who do for (10% vs 7%) spp. (10% vs 5%), and spp. (5% vs 4%). Rates for MDR-GNB infection were estimated lower in centres that administer AMP for MDR (5% vs 3%) spp. (5% vs 3%), and spp. (2% vs 1%). In an exploratory analysis, Southern and Eastern European countries expected higher rates of MDR-GNB infections with lower ICU admission and mortality rates which may be subject to estimation bias.

Conclusion: Screening for MDR-GNB is frequently performed. AMP against GNB infections is still often implemented. Estimated BSI rates are rather low, while the rate of MDR-GNB infections rises. Tailored prophylaxis including antimicrobial stewardship becomes more important.

References
1.
Rodriguez-Bano J, Gutierrez-Gutierrez B, Machuca I, Pascual A . Treatment of Infections Caused by Extended-Spectrum-Beta-Lactamase-, AmpC-, and Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018; 31(2). PMC: 5967687. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00079-17. View

2.
Leibovici L, Paul M, Cullen M, Bucaneve G, Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A . Antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients: new evidence, practical decisions. Cancer. 2006; 107(8):1743-51. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22205. View

3.
Morgan D, Diekema D, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich E . Adverse outcomes associated with Contact Precautions: a review of the literature. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37(2):85-93. PMC: 3557494. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257. View

4.
Cornely O, Schirmacher P . Clinical picture: Bacterial translocation in neutropenic sepsis. Lancet. 2001; 358(9296):1842. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06884-2. View

5.
Vehreschild M, Hamprecht A, Peterson L, Schubert S, Hantschel M, Peter S . A multicentre cohort study on colonization and infection with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(12):3387-92. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku305. View