Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Farm Hosp ; 48(2): 57-63, 2024.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37481455

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. RESULTS: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. CONCLUSIONS: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Antimicrobial Stewardship , Emergency Medical Services , Humans , Antimicrobial Stewardship/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Emergency Service, Hospital
2.
Int J Antimicrob Agents ; 61(3): 106734, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36690123

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infections of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are mainly due to Gram-positive bacteria (GPB). Data about Gram-negative bacteria CIED (GNB-CIED) infections are limited. This study aimed to investigate risk factors, clinical and diagnostic characteristics, and outcome of patients with GNB-CIED. METHODS: A multicentre, international, retrospective, case-control-control study was performed on patients undergoing CIED implantation from 2015 to 2019 in 17 centres across Europe. For each patient diagnosed with GNB-CIED, one matching control with GPB-CIED infection and two matching controls without infection were selected. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were enrolled: 59 with GNB-CIED infection, 59 with GPB-CIED infection and 118 without infection. No between-group differences were found regarding clinical presentation, diagnostic and therapeutic management. A trend toward a higher rate of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) positivity was observed among patients with GNB than in those with GPB-CIED infection (85.7% vs. 66.7%; P = 0.208). Risk factors for GNB-CIED infection were Charlson Comorbidity Index Score (relative risk reduction, RRR = 1.211; P = 0.011), obesity (RRR = 5.122; P = 0.008), ventricular-pacing ventricular-sensing inhibited-response pacemaker implantation (RRR = 3.027; P = 0.006) and right subclavian vein site of implantation (RRR = 5.014; P = 0.004). At 180-day survival analysis, GNB-CIED infection was associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 1.842; P = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity, high number of comorbidities and right subclavian vein implantation site were associated with increased risk of GNB-CIED infection. A prompt therapeutic intervention that may be guided using FDG PET/CT is suggested in patients with GNB-CIED infection, considering the poorer outcome observed in this group.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Infections , Defibrillators, Implantable , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections , Prosthesis-Related Infections , Humans , Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/adverse effects , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/methods , Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects , Defibrillators, Implantable/microbiology , Retrospective Studies , Radiopharmaceuticals , Risk Factors , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/complications , Obesity , Prosthesis-Related Infections/epidemiology , Prosthesis-Related Infections/diagnosis
4.
J Emerg Med ; 62(4): 443-454, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35065863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge about the real incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with COVID-19, their clinical characteristics, and their prognoses. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of ACS in patients with COVID-19 in the emergency department. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with ACS in 62 Spanish emergency departments between March and April 2020 (the first wave of COVID-19). We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without ACS (control A) and non-COVID-19 patients with ACS (control B). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and control subjects were performed regarding 58 characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 110 patients with ACS in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (1.48% [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.21-1.78%]). This incidence was lower than that observed in non-COVID-19 patients (3.64% [95% CI 3.54-3.74%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.40 [95% CI 0.33-0.49]). The clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 associated with a higher risk of presenting ACS were: previous coronary artery disease, age ≥60 years, hypertension, chest pain, raised troponin, and hypoxemia. The need for hospitalization and admission to intensive care and in-hospital mortality were higher in cases than in control group A (adjusted OR [aOR] 6.36 [95% CI 1.84-22.1], aOR 4.63 [95% CI 1.88-11.4], and aOR 2.46 [95% CI 1.15-5.25]). When comparing cases with control group B, the aOR of admission to intensive care was 0.41 (95% CI 0.21-0.80), while the aOR for in-hospital mortality was 5.94 (95% CI 2.84-12.4). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ACS in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department was low, around 1.48%, but could be increased in some circumstances. Patients with COVID-19 with ACS had a worse prognosis than control subjects with higher in-hospital mortality.


Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , COVID-19 , Acute Coronary Syndrome/complications , Acute Coronary Syndrome/diagnosis , Acute Coronary Syndrome/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...