학술논문

Impact of a multidisciplinary management team on clinical outcome in ICU patients affected by Gram-negative bloodstream infections: a pre-post quasi-experimental study
Document Type
article
Source
Annals of Intensive Care, Vol 14, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2024)
Subject
Multidisciplinary management team
Critically ill patients
Gram-negative bacteraemia
Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid
RC86-88.9
Language
English
ISSN
2110-5820
Abstract
Abstract Background Bloodstream infections (BSIs) by Gram-negative pathogens play a major role in intensive care patients, both in terms of prevalence and severity, especially if multi-drug resistant pathogens are involved. Early appropriate antibiotic therapy is therefore a cornerstone in the management of these patients, and growing evidence shows that implementation of a multidisciplinary team may improve patients’ outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological impact of the application of a multidisciplinary team on critically ill patients. Methods Pre-post study enrolling critically ill patients with Gram negative bloodstream infection in intensive care unit. In the pre-intervention phase (from January until December 2018) patients were managed with infectious disease consultation on demand, in the post-intervention phase (from January until December 2022) patients were managed with a daily evaluation by a multidisciplinary team composed of intensivist, infectious disease physician, clinical pharmacologist and microbiologist. Results Overall, 135 patients were enrolled during the study period, of them 67 (49.6%) in the pre-intervention phase and 68 (50.4%) in the post-intervention phase. Median age was 67 (58–75) years, sex male was 31.9%. Septic shock, the need for continuous renal replacement therapy and mechanical ventilation at BSI onset were similar in both groups, no difference of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) prevalence was observed. In the post-phase, empirical administration of carbapenems decreased significantly (40.3% vs. 62.7%, p = 0.02) with an increase of appropriate empirical therapy (86.9% vs. 55.2%, p