Italy versus the United Kingdom: differing styles for treating bacteremia in the critically ill patient, but who's right?

BACKGROUND: As no prospective, randomized, clinical trials (PRCTs) exist to inform decisions about antibiotic therapy for bacteraemia, ICUs have likely developed their own strategies. A multi-centre, multi-national questionnaire survey was used to assess variations in antibiotic strategy between ICUs in the United Kingdom (UK) and Italy. METHODS: In January 2001, a detailed questionnaire regarding antibiotic policy was sent to international (e.g., European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, ESICM) and national societies (Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli Interventi in Terapia Intensiva, GIVITI; Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care-Critical Trial Group, ANZIC-CTG; United Kingdom-Intensive Care Society, UK-ICS). RESULTS: Out of the 254 participating ICUs, 81 were from Italy and 32 were from the UK. In the UK, ICUs preferred to use a shorter course of mono-therapy compared to Italian ICUs when treating, a) primary bacteremia [7 (5-7) vs 10 (7-14), P<0.001]; b) UTI [5 (4-7) vs 8 (7-10), P<0.001]; c) Staphylococcus aureus [7 (5-12) vs 10 (7-15), P<0.001]; and d) Gram-negative bacteraemia associated with lines [6 (5-7) vs 10 (7-15), P<0.001], pneumonia [7 (5-7) vs 14 (10-15), P<0.001] and peritonitis [7 (5-9) vs 15 (10-15), P<0.000]. These differences in treatment strategy were likely correlated with the median inter-quartile range (IQR) of weekly input from a microbiologist or infectious disease specialist, which was more frequent in the UK compared to Italy [5 (2-6) vs 0 (0-1), P<0.001]. CONCLUSION: Possible influences accounting for the variations found between Italy and the UK are: 1) differences in interactions with microbiologists or infectious disease specialists, 2) historical/educational dogma, and 3) antibiotic resistance patterns. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal approach to treating bacteremia.

Predictors of prolonged mechanical ventilation in a cohort of 3,269 CABG patients.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged mechanical ventilation after heart surgery is associated with increased patient morbidity and mortality (4.9% vs 22-38%). A prospective observational cohort study was carried out to assess the predictors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and its impact on hospital survival in a cardiac surgical patient cohort admitted to our 8 bed postoperative ICU from January 1997 through June 2004. METHODS: All of the patient perioperative and ICU variables were input into an electronic database. Patients were divided into: 1) an Early Extubation group, undergoing a successful extubation within 12 h and 2) a Delayed Extubation group, needing mechanical ventilation longer than 12 h. RESULTS: A total of 3,269 patients undergoing a coronary artery bypass graft operation were admitted. A multivariate Logistic Regression model allowed us to identify: 1) redo surgery (OR = 3.090, 95% CI = 1.655-5.780); 2) cardiopulmonary bypass time longer than 91' (OR = 1.390, 95% CI = 1.013-1.908); 3) intraoperative transfusions of more than 4 units of red blood cells (OR = 3.144, 95% CI = 2.331-4.255) or fresh frozen plasma (OR = 2.976, 95% CI = 1.984-4.830); and 4) left ventricular ejection fraction = or < 30% (OR = 2.444, 95% CI 1.291-3.205) as independent predictors of prolonged mechanical ventilation. The Early Extubation group showed a significantly higher cumulative survival 180 days after the ICU admission (Log-Rank = 16.617, p=0.000). CONCLUSION: This audit allowed us to assess a predictive model identifying a priori coronary artery bypass graft patients that are more likely to undergo prolonged mechanical ventilation.