International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 348–354 | Cite as

Risk factors associated with unfavorable short-term treatment outcome in patients with documented Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection

  • V. Paul DiMondiEmail author
  • Mary L. Townsend
  • Richard H. Drew
Research Article


Background Invasive infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While risk factors for mortality have been identified, their influence on short-term outcomes impacting treatment selection has not been reported. Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between select patient- and treatment-related factors and short-term outcomes in patients with PA pneumonia and/or bacteremia. Setting Large academic medical center in the United States. Methods This IRB-approved single-center, retrospective case-cohort study included patients >18 years of age with culture-confirmed PA bacteremia and/or pneumonia receiving antimicrobial agent(s) active against PA. Main Outcome Measure Risk of unfavorable short-term treatment result. Results The population consisted of 117 patients (40 [34 %] and 77 [66 %] in the unfavorable and not-unfavorable groups, respectively). Baseline characteristics including age (mean of 63 years), gender (55 % male), Charlson score, creatinine clearance, and body mass index were comparable between groups. Piperacillin/tazobactam was the most common monotherapy antibiotic (46 and 33 % in unfavorable and not-unfavorable groups, respectively). Combination therapy primarily consisted of a beta-lactam plus ciprofloxacin in both unfavorable (10 %) and not-unfavorable (20 %) outcome groups. The preliminary regression model indicated that SIRS, direct ICU admission, and vasopressor therapy were associated with an unfavorable outcome. In addition, patients who received more than two active antimicrobials had a reduced risk of an unfavorable outcome. The final regression model revealed that vasopressor therapy (odds ratio [OR] 6.0; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI] 2.3, 17) was associated with an unfavorable outcome, while receipt of greater than two active antibiotics was associated with a reduced risk of an unfavorable outcome (OR 0.26; 95 % CI 0.07, 0.83). Conclusions Treatment with more than two agents with activity against PA was associated with a reduced risk of an unfavorable short-term treatment outcome in patients with bacteremia and/or pneumonia.


Antibiotic Bacteremia Combination Empiric Factor Pneumonia Pseudomonas Risk 



The authors would like to acknowledge Melissa Johnson, PharmD, AAHIVP for her contribution regarding the statistical analysis used for this project.


This research was conducted without special funding.

Conflicts of interest

Authors of this manuscript have no relevant disclosers concerning possible financial or personal relationships with commercial entities that may have a direct or indirect interest in the subject matter of this publication.


  1. 1.
    Garnacho-Montero J, Sa-Borges M, Sole-Violan J, et al. Optimal management therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia: an observational, multicenter study comparing monotherapy with combination antibiotic therapy. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1888–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Micek ST, Lloyd AE, Ritchie DJ, Reichley RM, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection: importance of appropriate initial antimicrobial treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:1306–11.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morata L, Cobos-Trigueros N, Martínez JA, et al. Influence of multidrug resistance and appropriate empirical therapy on the 30-day mortality rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:4833–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;171:388–416.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1–45.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Master RN, Clark RB, Karlowsky JA, Ramirez J, Bordon JM. Analysis of resistance, cross-resistance and antimicrobial combinations for Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from 1997 to 2009. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2011;38:291–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang C-I, Kim S-H, Kim H-B, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: risk factors for mortality and influence of delayed receipt of effective antimicrobial therapy on clinical outcome. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:745–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peña C, Suarez C, Ocampo-Sosa A, et al. Effect of adequate single-drug vs combination antimicrobial therapy on mortality in Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections: a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:208–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petros AJ, Marshall JC, van Saene HKF. Should morbidity replace mortality as an endpoint for clinical trials in intensive care? Lancet. 1995;345:369–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheetz MH, Hoffman M, Bolon MK, et al. Morbidity associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;64:311–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tam VH, Rogers CA, Chang K-T, Weston JS, Caeiro J-P, Garey KW. Impact of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia on patient outcomes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:3717–22.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giamarellou H. Prescribing guidelines for severe Pseudomonas infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;49:229–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar A, Ellis P, Arabi Y, et al. Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest. 2009;136:1237–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanj SS, Kanafani ZA. Current concepts in antimicrobial therapy against resistant gram-negative organisms: extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:250–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chamot E, Boffi El Amari E, Rohner P, Van Delden C. Effectiveness of combination antimicrobial therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:2756–64.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brunkhorst FM, Oppert M, Marx G, et al. Effect of empirical treatment with moxifloxacin and meropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:2390–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dundar D, Otkun M. In-vitro efficacy of synergistic antibiotic combinations in multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:111–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dubois V, Arpin C, Melon M, et al. Nosocomial outbreak due to a multiresistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa P12: efficacy of cefepime–amikacin therapy and analysis of β-lactam resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:2072–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Louie A, Grasso C, Bahniuk N, et al. The combination of meropenem and levofloxacin is synergistic with respect to both Pseudomonas aeruginosa kill rate and resistance suppression. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2646–54.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Christoff J, Tolentino J, Mawdsley E, Matushek S, Pitrak D, Weber SG. Optimizing empirical antimicrobial therapy for infection due to gram-negative pathogens in the intensive care unit: utility of a combination antibiogram. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:256–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vincent J-L, Ince C, Bakker J. Clinical review: circulatory shock—an update: a tribute to professor Max Harry Weil. Crit Care. 2012;16:239.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Paul DiMondi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary L. Townsend
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard H. Drew
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy PracticeCampbell University College of Pharmacy and Health SciencesBuies CreekUSA
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyDurham VA Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacy PracticeCampbell University College of Pharmacy and Health SciencesBuies CreekUSA
  4. 4.Duke University School of MedicineDuke Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations