Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

Optimizing antibiotic therapy in the intensive care unit setting

Critical Care20015:189

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1022

  • Published:

Abstract

Antibiotics are one of the most common therapies administered in the intensive care unit setting. In addition to treating infections, antibiotic use contributes to the emergence of resistance among pathogenic microorganisms. Therefore, avoiding unnecessary antibiotic use and optimizing the administration of antimicrobial agents will help to improve patient outcomes while minimizing further pressures for resistance. This review will present several strategies aimed at achieving optimal use of antimicrobial agents. It is important to note that each intensive care unit should have a program in place which monitors antibiotic utilization and its effectiveness. Only in this way can the impact of interventions aimed at improving antibiotic use (e.g. antibiotic rotation, de-escalation therapy) be evaluated at the local level.

Keywords

  • antibiotics
  • infections
  • intensive care
  • treatment

Introduction

There is general consensus that in-hospital antimicrobial resistance influences patient outcome and the allocation of resources [1]. Antibiotic resistance is occurring more rapidly and more frequently all over the world, with Gram-negative bacilli and Gram-positive bacteria being important causes of hospital-acquired infections [2,3]. In many cases, there are few effective antimicrobial agents, particularly with methicillin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative bacteria [4,5].

This review will focus on strategies aimed at optimizing antibiotic use within intensive care units. This is an important issue for intensivists because of the acute nature of critically ill patients and the increased likelihood of antimicrobial resistance within intensive care units [6,7]. There are numerous pressures within intensive care units that potentiate the emergence of antibiotic-resistant infections: the frequent use of broad spectrum antibiotics, the crowding of patients with complex medical problems into small areas of the hospital, and the presence of more chronically and acutely ill patients who require prolonged hospitalizations and often harbour antibiotic-resistant bacteria [8,9]. Furthermore, reductions in nursing and other staff through economic pressures increase the likelihood of person-to-person transmission.

Preventing nosocomial infections is important to reduce the use of antibiotics [1]. Many hospitals have reduced the number of nosocomial infections through infection control programmes and novel interventions [10,11]. By optimizing the use of antibiotics within intensive care units, patient outcomes are improved, better initial antibiotic administration is provided, and the chances of further antibiotic resistance are minimized [12,13,14]. In addition to the strategies described in this review (Table 1), clinicians must insure that antibiotic administration satisfies minimal requirements, such as proper dosing, drug interval administration, monitoring drug levels, and avoiding harmful drug interactions. Not satisfying these minimal requirements will lead to patients receiving suboptimal antibiotic concentrations, which increases the likelihood of treatment failures, antibiotic resistance, and patient toxicity [15,16].
Table 1

Practices promoting the optimization of antimicrobial use in the intensive care unit setting

Provide adequate initial treatment of serious infections (e.g. pneumonia, bloodstream)

Awareness of predominant causative pathogens

Up to date unit-specific pathogen antibiograms

Drainage of abscesses, empyema cavities, other infected fluid collections

Removal of infected foreign bodies (e.g. central venous catheters)

Monitor serum drug concentrations when appropriate to achieve therapeutic levels

Minimize antibiotic pressures promoting resistance

Avoid prolonged courses of empiric antibiotic therapy

Consider de-escalation of antibiotics based on available microbiologic data and clinical course

Use narrow spectrum antibiotics when supported by clinical situation and culture data

Establish appropriate thresholds for prescribing antibiotics

Develop predetermined criteria for the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy

Antimicrobial optimization strategies

Guidelines/protocols

Antibiotic administration guidelines/protocols developed locally or by national societies potentially avoid unnecessary antibiotic administration and increase therapeutic effectiveness. Unfortunately, even well-developed guidelines/protocols may not translate into widely accepted treatment algorithms. Some deviation from guidelines/protocols is expected because medical decision-making should be guided by an individual patient's characteristics and the judgement and experience of the caregivers. Locally developed guidelines therefore often have the best chance of being accepted by local health care providers and hence of being implemented [17].

The potential benefits of guidelines/protocols have been well demonstrated by the Latter Day Saints Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah, where a computerized system guides antibiotic administration. The system automatically identifies and minimizes adverse drug effects due to antibiotics [18,19] and has reduced inadequate administration compared with physician prescribing patterns [20]. The system has also been associated with stable antibiotic susceptibility patterns over time, both for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [21]. It has most recently been shown to significantly reduce orders for drugs to which patients were allergic, the number of adverse events caused by antibiotics, and the total number of antibiotic doses prescribed, as well as the medical costs associated with antimicrobial agents [22].

Non-automated or partially automated systems, usually driven by hospital-based quality improvement teams, have demonstrated similar results [23]. Bailey et al randomized patients so that pharmacists contacted some of their physicians with recommendations for discontinuing intravenous antibiotics [24]. The pharmacists' intervention significantly reduced antibiotic doses and mean antibiotic costs, but was associated with increased labour costs. Similarly, Leibovici et al developed a problem-oriented decision support system that significantly reduced the injudicious or inadequate administration of antibiotics, particularly in patients infected with multiresistant Gram-negative isolates, enterococci, and S. aureus [25]. As technology, such as handheld computers and portable communication devices, becomes widely available there is more opportunity to influence treatment protocols.

Two groups of investigators recently demonstrated the use of protocols/guidelines for the management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Singh et al used a scoring system to identify patients with suspected VAP who could be treated with 3 days of antibiotics as opposed to the conventional practice of 10-21 days [26]. Patients receiving the shorter course had similar clinical outcomes to the patients receiving the longer course but with fewer subsequent superinfections attributed to antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Ibrahim et al employed a pharmacist-directed protocol in intensive care units to reduce the administration of antibiotics for suspected VAP to 8.1 ± 5.1 days from 14.8 ± 8.1 days (P < 0.001) [27].

Restricting the hospital formulary

Restricting the use of certain antibiotics or classes of antibiotics has been shown to reduce pharmacy expenses and adverse drug reactions from the restricted drug or drugs [28]. This approach is generally applied to drugs with broad spectrums of action (such as imipenem), where antibiotic resistance emerges rapidly (as with third-generation cephalosporins) and where toxicity is readily identified (such as with aminoglycosides). However, not all experiences have been uniformly successful. One survey of 88 hospitals found that the average total expenditure on antimicrobial agents between 1993 and 1994 increased by $300 per occupied bed, despite over 60% of the hospitals restricting the use of antibiotics [29]. Of the 88 hospitals, only 7% decreased costs by $500 or more per occupied bed. The most common reasons for these decreases were restructuring of pricing contracts and education programmes aimed at reducing the use of antibiotics. Replacing one antimicrobial with another only lead to increased use of other antimicrobials, rather than the replacement, and did not produce any savings. Furthermore, restricting the use of certain antimicrobials can promote antibiotic resistance to other antimicrobials [30].

To date, mainly due to methodological problems, it has been difficult to demonstrate that restricting hospital formularies is effective in curbing the emergence of resistance or improving antimicrobial efficacy. However, the restrictions have been successful in outbreaks of infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, particularly in conjunction with infection control practices and antibiotic educational activities.

Hospitals in Greece during the late 1980s had high levels of antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacteria, particularly in Enterobacter, Klebsiella, and Acinetobacter species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [31]. To combat this, one hospital introduced a structured programme involving: specific rules for hospital hygiene; educational programmes for small groups of healthcare providers; and an antibiotic policy aimed at restricting their overall use, especially those with broad spectra. Imipenem, the newer fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, aztreonam, and the third-generation cephalosporins could only be ordered with a specific antibiotic request form that, from 1991 onwards, had to be approved by an infectious diseases specialist. A 3-year audit between 1992 and 1995 demonstrated decreased use of the restricted antibiotics compared with that before 1991, without there being an increase in the use of non-restricted antibiotics. There was also an associated reduction in antimicrobial resistance, except resistance to fluoroquinolones, which were subsequently removed from the hospital's formulary. All this was achieved despite increasing levels of antimicrobial resistance across Europe during the same time [2,3].

Outbreaks of diarrhoea associated with Clostridium difficile are often linked to antibiotic use and misuse. In one experience, an outbreak that was caused by a clonal isolate of clindamycin-resistant C. difficile was associated with increased use of clindamycin despite the presence of infection control practices [32]. To restrict the use of clin-damycin, all requests for its use had to be approved by a consultant in infectious diseases. This resulted in an overall reduction in its use, a sustained reduction in the mean number of cases of diarrhoea associated with C. difficile, and an increase in clindamycin susceptibility among C. difficile strains. Although this lead to increased use of antibiotics with anti-anaerobic activity, including cefotetan, ticarcillin-clavulonate, and imipenem, the hospital saved money as a result of the decreased incidence of diarrhoea associated with C. difficile.

Restricting hospital formularies may be useful in the control of outbreaks due to specific bacterial pathogens or when other infection control practices have been unsuccessful. They cannot, however, be viewed as an alternative to judicious use of antibiotics, since resistance is likely to develop in the antibiotics that are not restricted [30,33].

Scheduled changes in antibiotic

To combat an outbreak of infection from extended spectrum B-lactamase-producing Klebsiella, Rahal et al introduced an antibiotic guideline into their hospital that significantly restricted the use of cephalosporins [30]. The use of cephalosporins was reduced by 80.1%, which was accompanied by a 44.0% reduction in infection and colonization with extended spectrum B-lactamase-producing Klebsiella. At the same time, however, the use of imipenem increased by 140.6% and was associated with a 68.7% increase in the incidence of imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa.

Kollef et al examined the influence of a scheduled change in antibiotic on the incidence of nosocomial infections among patients undergoing cardiac surgery [34]. In the 6 months preceding the surgery, a third-generation cephalosporin (ceftazidime) was used for the treatment of Gram-negative bacterial infections. In the 6 months after the surgery, a fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin) was used. Unexpectedly, the overall incidence of VAP was significantly reduced in the 6 months after the surgery compared with the 6 months before, primarily because of a significant reduction in the incidence of VAP attributed to antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. A lower incidence of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteraemia was similarly observed in the 6 months after the surgery. This experience was followed by a series of scheduled antibiotic changes for the treatment of suspected Gram-negative bacterial infections among patients admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units [35]. Overall, the prescription of adequate antimicrobial therapy was statistically increased for Gram-negative bacterial infections. However, the long-term effectiveness of a limited number of scheduled antibiotic changes is unknown owing to the potential for increased emergence of resistance to the newly selected antibiotic classes [30].

Combining antibiotic therapy

The use of combination antimicrobial therapy has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the emergence of bacterial resistance, as has been employed for Mycobacterium tuberculosis [36]. Unfortunately, no convincing data exist to validate this hypothesis for nosocomial pneumonia [37]. Conclusive data that combination antibiotic therapy for nosocomial bloodstream infections prevents the subsequent emergence of antibiotic resistance is similarly lacking [38]. Nevertheless, there is some indirect evidence that the use of combination antimicrobial therapy may be useful.

In the County of Northern Jutland, Denmark, all bacter-aemia were analysed with regard to antibiotic resistance over a 14-year period (1981-1995) [39]. A total of 8840 isolates from 7938 episodes of bacteraemia were identified. The level of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, and fluoroquinolones among Enterobacteriaceae was low (<1%). The recommended regimen for empirical antibiotic treatment in this region is a combination of penicillin G or ampi-cillin and an aminoglycoside, which provided an overall coverage of 94%. This experience suggests that combination therapy with narrow spectrum agents over prolonged time periods may help curb resistance to broad spectrum antibiotics, yet still provide effective treatment of serious infections to include bacteraemia.

In addition to potentially preventing antibiotic resistance, combination antimicrobial therapy may be more effective for providing adequate initial treatment of resistant pathogens and producing beneficial clinical and microbio-logic responses. Trouillet et al demonstrated that certain antibiotic combinations were more likely to provide higher rates of bacteriologic cure than other combinations for nosocomial pneumonia within a specific hospital setting [6]. Brun-Buisson et al similarly showed that, despite the addition of an aminoglycoside, treatment with ceftazidime was associated with a greater number of bacteriologic failures as compared with piperacillin-tazobactam employed in combination with an aminoglycoside [40].

Antibiotic rotation

The concept of antibiotic class cycling has been advocated as a potential strategy for reducing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance [41]. In theory, a class of antibiotics or a specific antibiotic drug is withdrawn from use for a defined time period and reintroduced at a later point in time in an attempt to limit bacterial resistance to the cycled antimicrobial agents [42]. However, limited clinical data is currently available that has examined the issue of antibiotic class changes or cycling [43].

Gerding et al evaluated cycling of aminoglycosides during 10 years at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, cycling amikacin and gentamicin [44]. Resistance to gentamicin had emerged as a clinical problem limiting the use of that specific aminoglycoside at this hospital. Using cycle times of 12-51 months, these investigators found significantly reduced resistance to gentamicin when amikacin was used, but a return of resistance with the rapid reintroduction of gentamicin. This was followed by more gradual reintroduction of gentamicin a second time, without increased levels of resistance recurring. This experience suggested that the cycling of antibiotics within the same drug class, in some circumstances, could be an effective strategy for curbing antimicrobial resistance.

Gruson et al observed a reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia after introducing an antimicrobial programme that consisted of supervised rotation and restricted use of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin, which were widely prescribed before institution of the antibiotic programme [45]. The antibiotic selection was based on monthly reviews of the pathogens isolated from the intensive care unit and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns. These clinicians were therefore rotating antimicrobial agents based on 'real-time' information that allowed potentially more effective antibiotics to be prescribed to their patients. They observed a decrease in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia that was primarily due to a reduction in the number of episodes attributed to potentially antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, including P. aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Acinetobacter baumanii.

Area-specific antimicrobial therapy

Variability in the pathogens associated with nosocomial infections among hospitals, along with their antibiotic susceptibility profiles, has been demonstrated to occur [46]. Additionally, changing temporal patterns of nosocomial pathogens and antimicrobial susceptibility over time have been described [30,47]. This suggests that hospitals may need to develop systems for reporting antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacterial pathogens for individual hospital areas or units on a regular basis because of the potential existence of intrahospital variations. Using such data can improve the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy by increasing the likelihood for adequate initial treatment of infections [6].

Antimicrobial de-escalation

There is increasing clinical evidence suggesting that failure to initially treat high-risk microbiologically documented infections (e.g. hospital-acquired pneumonia, bac-teraemia) with an adequate initial antibiotic regimen is associated with greater patient morbidity and mortality [12,13,14]. Inadequate initial antibiotic treatment is usually defined as either the absence of antimicrobial agents directed against a specific class of microorganisms (e.g. absence of therapy for fungaemia due to Candida albicans) or the administration of antimicrobial agents to which the microorganism responsible for the infection was resistant (e.g. empiric oxacillin treatment of pneumonia subsequently attributed to methicillin-resistant S. aureus based on appropriate culture results).

The most common pathogens associated with the administration of inadequate antimicrobial treatment in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia include potentially antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter species, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter species) and S. aureus, especially strains with methicillin resistance [12,13,14]. For patients with hospital-acquired bloodstream infections, antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive bacteria (methicillin-resistant S. aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci), Candida species and, less commonly, antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria account for most cases of inadequate antibiotic treatment [48]. Given the increasing rates of nosocomial infections due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, clinicians should consider the following recommendations for the initial antibiotic treatment of hospital-acquired infections.

Risk stratification should be employed to identify those patients at high risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These risk factors include prior treatment with antibiotics during the hospitalization, prolonged lengths of stay in the hospital, and the presence of invasive devices (e.g. central venous catheters, endotracheal tubes, urinary catheters) [6,7]. Patients at high risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria should be treated initially with a combination of antibiotics providing coverage for the most likely pathogens to be encountered in that specific intensive care unit setting. Such an approach to initial antibiotic treatment can be potentially modified if specific micro-organisms are excluded based on examination of appropriate clinical specimens (e.g. Gram stain of lower respiratory tract specimens). Such empiric therapy should, however, always be modified once the agent of infection is identified or discontinued altogether if the diagnosis of infection becomes unlikely. De-escalation of antibiotic therapy can be thought of as a strategy to balance the need to provide adequate initial antibiotic treatment of high-risk patients with the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic utilization, which promotes resistance [27]. Application of this strategy should become more feasible and be accepted as the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for specific indications and risk-stratified patient groups becomes better identified in the hospital setting [26].

Multiple interventions (infection control and antibiotic restriction)

Several recent experiences suggest that infection control practices aimed at preventing horizontal transmission of antibiotic-resistant nosocomial infections may lack success unless they are also coupled with antimicrobial interventions. Quale et al found, despite an intensive programme of barrier precautions for patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) (including having VRE-positive patients in single rooms, performing chlorhexidine perineal washes on VRE-positive patients, using gloves and chlorhexidine soap for hand washing, and eliminating electronic thermometers), that nearly 50% of the inpatients at their hospital were found to have gastrointestinal colonization with VRE [49,50]. In an attempt to control this outbreak, the hospital formulary was altered by restricting the use of vancomycin and third-generation cephalosporins and adding beta-lactamase inhibitors (ampicillin/sulbactam and piperacillin/tazobactam) because of their enhanced activity against enterococcus. The average monthly use of ceftazidime and vancomycin decreased by 55 and 34%, respectively, after 6 months of implementation. This was associated with a decrease in the point prevalence of faecal colonization with VRE from 47 to 15% (P < 0.001) as well as a decrease in the number of patients with clinical isolates positive for VRE.

Montecalvo et al described the impact of an enhanced programme for the control of VRE infections in the hospital setting [51]. They developed a multifaceted intervention that included cohorting of staff according to patients' VRE status, early infectious disease consultation, isolating patients with known VRE colonization and those whose VRE colonization status was undetermined, and limiting the use of specific antibiotics (e.g. vancomycin, imipenem) in addition to their standard practices. The incidences of VRE infection and colonization were statistically reduced, as was use of the targeted antimicrobial agents. These studies suggest that strategies aimed at curbing unnecessary antibiotic utilization along with implementation of sound infection control practices are most likely to succeed in terms of reducing antimicrobial resistance and enhancing overall antimicrobial efficacy.

Conclusion

Clinicians practising in intensive care units must develop and promote strategies for more effectively employing antimicrobial therapy. The most successful strategies will be multidisciplinary, involving cooperation from the pharmacy, infection control, nursing staff, treating physicians, and infectious disease consultants. Such programmes should also focus both on promoting infection control practices and employing rational antibiotic utilization aimed at minimizing future emergence of resistance.

Abbreviations

VAP: 

VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia

VRE: 

VRE = vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

Supported in part by the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Washington University School of Medicine, , Barnes-Jewish Hospital, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8052, St Louis, MO 63110, USA

References

  1. Goldmann DA, Weinstein RA, Wenzel RP, Tablan OC, Duma RJ, Gaynes RP, Schlosser J, Martone WJ: Strategies to prevent and control the emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership. JAMA 1996, 275: 234-240. 10.1001/jama.275.3.234View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, Bruining HA, White J, Nicolas-Chanoin MH, Wolff M, Spencer RC, Hemmer M: The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe: results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study; EPIC International Advisory Committee. JAMA 1995, 274: 639-644. 10.1001/jama.274.8.639View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hanberger H, Garcia-Rodriguez JA, Gobernado M, Goossens H, Nilsson LE, Struelens MJ: Antibiotic susceptibility among aerobic Gram-negative Bacilli in intensive care units in 5 European countries. JAMA 1999, 281: 67-71. 10.1001/jama.281.1.67View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sieradzki K, Roberts RB, Haber SW, Tomasz A: The development of Vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 517-523. 10.1056/NEJM199902183400704View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Quinn JP: Clinical problems posed by multiresistant nonfermenting gram-negative pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 27: S117-S124.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Trouillet JL, Chastre J, Vuagnat A, Joly-Guillou ML, Combaux D, Dombret MC, Gibert C: Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by potentially drug-resistant bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998, 157: 531-539.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP: Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit Care Med 1999, 27: 887-892. 10.1097/00003246-199905000-00020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Haley RW, Bregman DA: The role of understaffing and overcrowding in recurrent outbreaks of staphylococcal infection in a neonatal special-care unit. J Infect Dis 1982, 145: 875-885.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fridkin SK, Pear SM, Williamson TH, Galgiani JN, Jarvis WR: The role of understaffing in central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996, 17: 150-158.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Joiner GA, Salisbury D, Bollin GE: Utilizing quality assurance as a tool for reducing the risk of nosocomial ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Med Quality 1996, 11: 100-103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyce JM, White RL, Spruill EY, Wall M: Cost-effective application of the Centers for Disease Control Guideline for Prevention of Nosocomial Pneumonia. Am J Infect Control 1985, 13: 228-232.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kollef MH, Ward S: The influence of mini-BAL cultures on patient outcomes: implications for the antibiotic management of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1998, 113: 412-420.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Alvarez-Lerma F: Modification of empiric antibiotic treatment in patients with pneumonia acquired in the intensive care unit. ICU-Acquired Pneumonia Study Group. Intensive Care Med 1996, 22: 387-394.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rello J, Gallego M, Mariscal D, Sonora R, Valles J: The value of routine microbial investigation in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997, 156: 196-200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Schentag JJ, Hyatt JM, Carr JR, Paladino JA, Birmingham MC, Zimmer GS, Cumbo TJ: Genesis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), how treatment of MRSA infections has selected for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium , and the importance of antibiotic management and infection control. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 26: 1204-1214.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Young RJ, Lipman J, Gin T, Gomersall CD, Joynt GM, Oh TE: Intermittent bolus dosing of ceftazidime in critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997, 40: 269-273. 10.1093/jac/40.2.269View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Clemmer TP, Spuhler VJ, Berwick DM, Nolan TW: Cooperation: the foundation of improvement. Ann Intern Med 1998, 128: 1004-1009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS, Stevens LE, Burke JP: Prospective surveillance of imipenem/cilastin use and associated seizures using a hospital information system. Ann Pharmacother 1993, 27: 497-501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP: Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997, 277: 301-306. 10.1001/jama.277.4.301View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans RS, Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Lundsgaarde HP, Burke JP: Improving empiric antibiotic selection using computer decision support. Arch Intern Med 1994, 154: 878-884. 10.1001/archinte.154.8.878View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS, Burke JP: Implementing antibiotic practice guidelines through computer-assisted decision support: clinical and financial outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1996, 124: 884-890.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme JF, Lloyd JF, Burke JP: A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 1998, 338: 232-238. 10.1056/NEJM199801223380406View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Carr JR, Fitzpatrick P, Izzo JL, Cumbo TJ, Birmingham MC, Adelman MH, Paladino JA, Hanson SC, Schentag JJ: Changing the infection control paradigm from off-line to real time: the experience at Millard Fillmore Health System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997, 18: 255-259.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Bailey TC, Ritchie DJ, McMullin ST, Kahn M, Reichley RM, Casabar E, Shannon W, Dunagan WC: A randomized, prospective evaluation of an interventional program to discontinue intravenous antibiotics at two tertiary care teaching institutions. Pharmacotherapy 1997, 17: 277-281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Leibovici L, Gitelman V, Yehezkelli Y, Poznanski O, Milo G, Paul M: Improving empirical antibiotic treatment: prospective, non-intervention testing of a decision support system. J Intern Med 1997, 242: 395-400. 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1997.00232.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Singh N, Rogers P, Atwood CW, Wagener MM, Yu VL: Short-course empiric antibiotic therapy for patients with pulmonary infiltrates in the intensive care unit. A proposed solution for indiscriminate antibiotic prescription. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000, 162: 505-511.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ibrahim EH, Ward S, Sherman G, Schaiff R, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH: Experience with a clinical guideline for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: 1109-1115. 10.1097/00003246-200106000-00003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McGowan JE Jr, Gerding DN: Does antibiotic restriction prevent resistance? New Horizons 1996, 4: 370-376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rifenburg RP, Paladino JA, Hanson SC, Tuttle JA, Schentag JJ: Benchmark analysis of strategies hospitals use to control antimicrobial expenditures. Am J Health-System Pharmacy 1996, 53: 2054-2062.Google Scholar
  30. Rahal JJ, Urban C, Horn D, Freeman K, Segal-Maurer S, Maurer J, Mariano N, Marks S, Burns JM, Dominick D, Lim M: Class restriction of cephalosporin use to control total cephalosporin resistance in nosocomial Klebsiella . JAMA 1998, 280: 1233-1237. 10.1001/jama.280.14.1233View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Giamarellou H, Antoniadou A: The effect of monitoring of antibiotic use on decreasing antibiotic resistance in the hospital. Ciba Found Symp 1997, 207: 76-86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Climo MW, Israel DS, Wong ES, Williams D, Coudron P, Markowitz SM: Hospital-wide restriction of clindamycin: effect on the incidence of Clostridium difficile -associated diarrhea and cost. Ann Intern Med 1998, 128: 989-995.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer KS, Urban C, Eagan JA, Berger BJ, Rahal JJ: Nosocomial outbreak of Klebsiella infection resistant to late-generation cephalosporins. Ann Intern Med 1993, 119: 353-358.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kollef MH, Vlasnik J, Sharpless L, Pasque C, Murphy D, Fraser VJ: Scheduled rotation of antibiotic classes. A strategy to decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997, 156: 1040-1048.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kollef MH, Ward S, Sherman G, Prentice D, Schaiff R, Huey W, Fraser VJ: Inadequate treatment of nosocomial infections is associated with certain empiric antibiotic choices. Crit Care Med 2000, 28: 3456-3464. 10.1097/00003246-200010000-00014View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Yates RR: New intervention strategies for reducing antibiotic resitance. Chest 1999, 115: 24S-27S. 10.1378/chest.115.suppl_1.24SView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Bergogne-Berezin E: Treatment and prevention of nosocomial pneumonia. Chest 1995, 108: 26S-34S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegman-Igra Y, Ravona R, Primerman H, Giladi M: Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia: an analysis of 123 episodes, with particular emphasis on the effect of antibiotic therapy. Int J Infect Dis 1998, 2: 211-215.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kristensen B, Smedeggard HH, Pedersen HM, Andersen MF, Dahlerup JF, Sorensen HT, Korsager B, Schonheyder HC: Antibiotic resistance patterns among blood culture isolates in a Danish county 1981-1995. J Med Microbiol 1999, 48: 67-71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Brun-Buisson C, Sollet JP, Schweich H, Briere S, Petit C: Treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with pipercillin-tazobactam/amikacin versus ceftazidime/amikacin: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 1998, 26: 346-354.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanders WE Jr, Sanders CC: Circumventing antibiotic resistance in specialized hospital units. Clin Microbiol Infect 1997, 3: 272-273.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Niederman MS: Is "crop rotation" of antibiotics the solution to a "resistant" problem in the ICU? Am J Respir Crit 1997, 156: 1029-1031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Kollef MH: Is there a role for antibiotic cycling in the intensive care unit? Crit Care Med 2001, 29: N135-N142. 10.1097/00003246-200104001-00014View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Gerding DN, Larson TA, Hughes RA, Weiler M, Shanholtzer C, Peterson LR: Aminoglycoside resistance and aminoglycoside usage: Ten years of experience in one hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991, 35: 1284-1290.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gruson D, Hibert G, Vargas F, Valentino R, Bebear C, Allery A, Gbikpi-Benissan G, Cardinaud JP: Rotation and restricted use of antibiotics in a medical intensive care unit: impact on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000, 162: 837-843.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rello J, Sa-Borges M, Correa H, Leal SR, Baraibar J: Variations in etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia across four treatment sites. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999, 160: 608-613.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Husni RN, Goldstein LS, Arroliga AC, Hall GS, Fatica C, Stoller JK, Gordon SM: Risk factors for an outbreak of multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter nosocomial pneumonia among intubated patients. Chest 1999, 115: 1378-1382. 10.1378/chest.115.5.1378View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kollef MH, Sherman G, Wand S, Fraser VJ: Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections: a risk factor for hospital mortality among critically ill patients. Chest 1999, 115: 462-474. 10.1378/chest.115.2.462View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Quale J, Landman D, Saurina G, Atwood E, Di Tore V, Patel K: Manipulation of a hospital antimicrobial formulary to control an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterocci. Clin Infect Dis 1996, 23: 1020-1025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Quale J, Landman D, Atwood E, Kreiswirth B, Willey BM, Ditore V, Zaman M, Patel K, Saurina G, Huang W, Oydna E, Burney S: Experience with a hospital-wide outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Am J InfectControl 1996, 24: 372-379.Google Scholar
  51. Montecalvo MA, Jarvis WR, Uman J, Shay DK, Petrullo C, Rodney K, Gedris C, Horowitz HW, Wormser G-P: Infection-control measures reduce tranmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in an endemic setting. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131: 269-272.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2001

Advertisement