Abstract
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impactof reducing the length of antibiotic prophylaxis for cerebrospinalshunts on total antibiotic use and key resistantpathogens.
Methods:
In January 2004, the use of antibiotic prophylaxiswas reduced to a single shot dose with cefuroxime in anintensive care unit (ICU). Prior to this intervention, prophylaxiswith second-generation cephalosporins wasadministered during the entire period of external cerebrospinalfluid (CSF) drainage. The effect on the antibiotic usedensity (AD: DDD [defined daily doses] per 1,000 patientdays[pd]) was calculated prior to (January 2002–December2003) and following implementation of the intervention(January 2004–December 2006) by segmented regressionanalysis of an interrupted time series. Resistance proportions(RP) and resistance densities (RD), defined as resistantpathogen/1,000 pd of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis orE. faecium, third-generation-resistant (3GC) Escherichia coliand Kebsiella pneumoniae, and imipenem-resistant Pseudomonusaeruginosa, were compared by the Fisher’s exacttest before and after the intervention.
Results:
Total antibiotic use by 147 DDD/1,000 pd decreasedafter the intervention when pre-operative prophylaxis waschanged into single shot prophylaxis, from an estimated meanof 1,036 DDD/1,000 pd before the intervention to 887DDD/1,000 pd post-intervention. This decrease was primarilydue to a significant reduction in theamount of cefuroxime usedfor prophylaxis. The reduction in total antibiotic consumptionwas sustainable, and it did not increase again during the next36 months. The RR and RD of third-generation cephalosporinresistantE. coli increased after January 2004, whereas thepercentage of MRSA significantly decreased.
Conclusion:
Change to single shot prophylaxis along with anongoing antibiotic stewardship program resulted in a cut-backin total antibiotic use amounting to as much as 15%. It wouldtherefore appear that targeting interventions aimed at reducingantibiotic prophylaxis in surgical ICUs may be very worthwhile.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organisation: WHO global strategy for containment of antimicrobial resistance. World Health Organisation, Manila 2005.
Foster KR, Grundmann H: Do we need to put society first? The potential for tragedy in antimicrobial resistance. PLoS Med 2006; 3: 177–180.
John JF Jr, Fishman NO: Programmatic role of the infectious diseases physician in controlling antimicrobial costs in the hospital. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 471–485.
Kollef MH, Micek ST: Strategies to prevent antimicrobial resistance in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2003; 33: 1845–1853.
Ratilal B, Costa J, Sampaio C: Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical introduction of intracranial ventricular shunts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD005365.
Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D: Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27: 299–309.
German Institute for Standardization (DIN): DIN 58940-4. Medical microbiology — methods for the determination of susceptibility of pathogens (except mycobacteria) to antimicrobial agents — part 4: evaluation classes of the minimum inhibitory concentration. Beuth Verlag, Berlin 1998.
Ansari F, Gray K, Nathwani D, Phillips G, Ogston S, Ramsay C, Davey P: Outcomes of an intervention to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing: interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 842–848.
Zentner J, Gilsbach J, Felder T: Antibiotic prophylaxis in cerebrospinal fluid shunting: a prospective randomized trial in 129 patients. Neurosurg Rev 1995; 18: 169–172.
Arnaboldi L: Antimicrobial prophylaxis with ceftriaxone in neurosurgical procedures: a prospective study of 100 patients undergoing shunt operations. Chemotherapy 1996; 42: 384–390.
Meyer E, Schwab F, Jonas D, Rueden H, Gastmeier P, Daschner FD: Surveillance of antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units (SARI): 1. Antimicrobial use in German intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 1089–1096.
Bosso JA, Mauldin PD: Using interrupted time series analysis to assess associations of fluoroquinolone formulary changes with susceptibility of Gram-negative pathogens and isolation rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 2106–2112.
Charbonneau P, Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Ramakers M, Daubin C, du Cheyron D, Lebouvier G, Le Coutour X, Leclercq R: French Fluoroquinolone Free (3F) Study Group: fluoroquinolone use and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolation rates in hospitalized patients: a quasi experimental study. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 778–784.
Paterson DL: Collateral damage from cephalosporin or quinolone antibiotic therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38[Suppl 4]: S341–S345.
European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System: EARSS Annual Report 2006. EARSS, Bilthoven 2007, pp 1–162.
Kola A, Holst M, Chaberny IF, Ziesing S, Suerbaum S, Gastmeier P: Surveillance of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria and routine use of contact isolation: experience from a three-year period. J Hosp Infect 2007; 66: 46–51.
Paterson DL, Bonomo RA: Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18: 657–686.
Trautmann M, Pollitt A, Loh U, Synowzik I, Reiter W, Stecher J, Rohs M, May U, Meyer E: Implementation of an intensified infection control program to reduce MRSA transmissions in a German tertiary care hospital. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35: 643–649.
Meyer E, Schwab F, Pollitt A, Trautmann M: Resistance rates in ICUs: interpretation and pitfalls. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65: 84–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, E., Schwab, F., Pollitt, A. et al. Impact of a Change in Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Total Antibiotic Use in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit. Infection 38, 19–24 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-009-9115-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-009-9115-2