Retrospective Cohort Study of the Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury with Vancomycin Area under the Curve-Based Dosing with Concomitant Piperacillin-Tazobactam Compared to Meropenem or Cefepime.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complication associated with vancomycin. Previous studies demonstrated that the combination of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam increases the risk of AKI compared to vancomycin with meropenem or cefepime. These studies did not utilize area under the curve (AUC)-based dosing, which reduces vancomycin exposure and may decrease nephrotoxicity compared with trough-based dosing. This study evaluated the incidence of AKI in patients receiving AUC-dosed vancomycin with either concomitant piperacillin-tazobactam (VPT) or meropenem or cefepime (VMC). This retrospective cohort study included patients admitted to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital between October 2019 and September 2020 who received AUC-dosed vancomycin and concomitant piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, or cefepime for at least 48 h. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI during treatment or within 24 h of discontinuation. A total of 435 patients (VPT, n = 331; VMC, n = 104) who received a median duration of 4 days of treatment were included. The incidence of AKI was significantly higher with VPT than with VMC (13.6% versus 4.8% [P = 0.014]). Multivariable analysis showed VPT to be an independent risk factor for the development of AKI (odds ratio [OR], 3.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.15 to 7.76]). VPT was associated with more frequent AKI than VMC, even with the relatively short courses of antimicrobial therapy administered in this population. In comparison with the precedent in the literature for trough-based vancomycin dosing, our results suggest that the use of AUC-based vancomycin dosing in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, or cefepime may result in a lower overall incidence of AKI.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia: depends on your definition.

Reduction of hospital-acquired infections is a patient safety goal and regularly monitored by Performance Improvement committees. There is discordance between the ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate reported by the Infection Control Committee (ICC) and that observed by our Trauma Service. To investigate this difference, a retrospective evaluation of cases of VAP diagnosed on a single service was undertaken. A prospectively collected database was queried for VAP in intensive care unit patients between January 2010 and June 2011. This was compared with the list of mechanically ventilated patients provided by the ICC. Comparison for criteria used to diagnose pneumonia, ventilator day of the diagnosis, was recorded. The ICC identified two VAPs from 136 potential patients compared with the Trauma Service identifying 36 VAPs. A difference in diagnostic criteria between the ICC and the Trauma Service focused on use of the National Nosocomial Infection Survey (NNIS) algorithm versus quantitative microbiology from bronchoalveolar lavage specimens. Thirty-five of 36 Trauma Service VAPs were not identified as VAPs by the NNIS algorithm as a result of the chest radiographs. Application of differing definitions of VAP results in markedly different VAP rates. The difference has significant implications as infection rates are increasingly reported as a quality metric.