RESUMEN
To evaluate the relevance of ceftriaxone prescriptions in an emergency department of a university hospital and suggest whenever possible an antibiotic alternative with a lower ecological impact. All ceftriaxone prescriptions in the first complete week of each month during the year 2016, in the emergency department of the Grenoble university hospital, have been analyzed by an IDS referent in antibiotic prescriptions. Ceftriaxone prescription was considered appropriate if justified (an antibiotic must be used), relevant (ceftriaxone is a good choice), and adapted (in terms of dose, route, and period of administration), regardless of a potential antibiotic association, consistent with international recommendations. We considered patient outcome regarding the quality of initial prescription. Additionally, alternatives were suggested for relevant prescriptions. We included 327 patients, of which ceftriaxone prescriptions were not appropriate in 37.6% of cases: 13.5% were not justified, 12.8% not relevant, and 11.3% not adapted. The main factors associated with unjustified prescriptions were urinary, dermatological, and less frequent infection sites (p < 0.001). The main factors associated with irrelevant prescriptions were patients carrying multi-resistant bacteria (p = 0.002) or already following an antibiotic prescription at emergency department admission (p = 0.024). Antibiotic prescriptions were poorly adapted in patients with a creatinine rate over 150 µmol/L (p < 0.001) and septic shocks (p = 0.032). No difference was found concerning the hospital length of stay comparing appropriate initial prescriptions to inappropriate ones. However, alternatives with lower ecological impact were suggested in 55.2% of relevant prescriptions. In emergency departments, it is crucial to preserve ceftriaxone, selecting better indications and considering alternatives.