RESUMEN
It is unclear whether norfloxacin predisposes to infections by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We aimed to evaluate if patients with cirrhosis receiving norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections were more likely to present a multidrug-resistant isolate than those without prophylaxis. This is a cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay (NCT03919032) from September 2018 to December 2020. The outcome variable was a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of norfloxacin on infection caused by MDROs considering potential confounders. Among the 472 patients from 28 centers, 53 (11%) were receiving norfloxacin at the time of the bacterial infection. Patients receiving norfloxacin had higher MELD-sodium, were more likely to have ascites or encephalopathy, to receive rifaximin, beta-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors, to have a nosocomial or health-care-associated infection, prior bacterial infections, admissions to critical care units or invasive procedures, and to be admitted in a liver transplant center. In addition, we found that 13 (24.5%) patients with norfloxacin and 90 (21.5%) of those not receiving it presented infections caused by MDROs (adjusted OR 1.55; 95% CI: 0.60-4.03; p = 0.360). The use of norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections was not associated with multidrug resistance. These results help empiric antibiotic selection and reassure the current indication of norfloxacin prophylaxis in well-selected patients.Study registration number: NCT03919032.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas , Peritonitis , Humanos , Norfloxacino/uso terapéutico , Estudios Transversales , Infecciones Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Infecciones Bacterianas/microbiología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Cirrosis Hepática/complicaciones , Cirrosis Hepática/microbiología , Peritonitis/microbiología , Resistencia a Múltiples Medicamentos , Profilaxis Antibiótica/efectos adversosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: there is insufficient data regarding bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis to support recommendations for empiric antibiotic treatments, particularly in Latin America. This study aimed to evaluate bacterial infection's clinical impact and microbiological characteristics, intending to serve as a platform to revise current practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay. Patient and infection-related information were collected, focusing on microbiology, antibiotic susceptibility patterns, and outcomes. RESULTS: 472 patients were included. Spontaneous bacterial infections and urinary tract infections (UTIs) were registered in 187 (39.6%) and 116 (24.6%) patients, respectively, representing the most common infections. Of the 256 culture-positive infections, 103 (40.2%) were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (reaching 50% for UTI), and 181 (70.7%) received adequate initial antibiotic treatment. The coverage of cefepime and ceftriaxone was over 70% for the empirical treatment of community-acquired spontaneous infections, but ceftazidime´s coverage was only 40%. For all UTI cases and for healthcare-associated or nosocomial spontaneous bacterial infections, the lower-spectrum antibiotics that covered at least 70% of the isolations were imipenem and meropenem. During hospitalization, a second bacterial infection was diagnosed in 9.8% of patients, 23.9% required at least one organ support, and 19.5% died. CONCLUSIONS: short-term mortality of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis is very high, and a high percentage were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms, particularly in UTIs. The information provided might serve to adapt recommendations, particularly related to empirical antibiotic treatment in Argentina and Uruguay. The study was registered in Clinical Trials (NCT03919032).
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas , Infección Hospitalaria , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Argentina/epidemiología , Uruguay/epidemiología , Infecciones Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Bacterianas/epidemiología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Cirrosis Hepática/complicaciones , Cirrosis Hepática/diagnóstico , Cirrosis Hepática/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Urinarias/diagnóstico , Infecciones Urinarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Urinarias/epidemiología , Bacterias , Infección Hospitalaria/diagnóstico , Infección Hospitalaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With the emergence of multidrug-resistant infections, healthcare professionals must evaluate the effectiveness of empiric antibiotic treatments. AIMS: To assess the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of microorganisms causing spontaneous infections in patients with cirrhosis and to evaluate the suitability of empiric antibiotic treatments based on major clinical guidelines. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized two datasets from prospective studies of patients with cirrhosis and culture-positive spontaneous bacterial infections in Argentina and Uruguay. We estimated susceptibility to commonly used antibiotics and assessed coverage following European and American recommendations. RESULTS: We analyzed 238 episodes of culture-positive spontaneous infections in 229 patients. When implementing the recommendations for empiric treatment of community-acquired spontaneous infections, ceftazidime would result in 39 % coverage, whereas ceftriaxone would reach 70 %. Cefepime, which is not included in the recommendations, would have provided coverage of 74 %. Using ertapenem for nosocomial infections would have only covered 56 % of these episodes, whereas meropenem or imipenem reached 73 % coverage. Only the combination of meropenem or imipenem plus vancomycin would achieve a coverage surpassing 85 % in healthcare-associated or nosocomial spontaneous bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Our study uncovers inadequate coverage in specific clinical scenarios when adhering to recommendations, underscoring the necessity of guidelines based on local epidemiological data.