Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy with continuous infusion of meropenem: A retrospective analysis of three years of clinical experience / Tratamiento antimicrobiano domiciliario endovenoso con infusión continua de meropenem: un análisis restrospectivo de tres años de experiencia clínica

Introduction: Data regarding outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) with continuous infusion of meropenem (CIM) remain scarce and controversial. We aimed to analyze its outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients who received OPAT with CIM during a three-year period at a single center in northwest Spain. Demographics, clinical data and OPAT outcomes were recorded. Results: Since January 2017–December 2019, 34 patients received 35 OPAT episodes with CIM. The median age was 75 years, and 18 (51.4%) had a Charlson comorbidity index>2. Twelve (34.3%) had respiratory infection, 11 (31.4%) urinary tract infection, and 12 (34.3%) other infections. Twenty-one (60%) received a dose of 6g/day, and 27 (77.1%) received combined antibiotic therapy. The duration of OPAT with CIM was 10 median days. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequently (34.3%) isolated microorganism and 10 (28.6%) infections were polymicrobial. During OPAT and hospital at home unit admission, 4 (11.4%) patients had any adverse reaction that required CIM withdrawal, 2 (5.7%) were readmitted, and 3 (8.8%) died (2 infection-related deaths). After 30 days from discharge 6 (18.8%) of 32 not-censored patients had unplanned readmissions (2 infection-related), 6 (18.8%) developed recurrence (3 relapses, 3 reinfections) and 1 (3.1%) died (none-infection-related death). Twenty-three (71.9%) of these 32 patients did not experience unplanned readmission, recurrence or death. Conclusion: CIM can be an option to be administrated in OPAT programs in selected patients. Further studies are warranted to increase evidence regarding its use, and to externally validate our findings.(AU)

Introducción: Los datos sobre el tratamiento antimicrobiano domiciliario endovenoso (TADE) con infusión continua de meropenem (ICM) son escasos y controvertidos. Nuestro objetivo fue analizar sus resultados. Métodos: Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes que recibieron TADE con ICM durante tres años en un centro del noroeste de España. Se registraron datos demográficos, clínicos y resultados. Resultados: Desde enero de 2017 a diciembre de 2019, 34 pacientes recibieron 35 episodios de TADE con ICM. La mediana de edad fue de 75 años y 18 (51,4%) tenían un índice de comorbilidad de Charlson>2. Doce (34,3%) tenían infección respiratoria, 11 (31,4%) urinaria y 12 (34,3%) otras infecciones. Veintiuno (60%) recibieron una dosis de 6g/día y 27 (77,1%) antibioterapia combinada. La duración mediana del TADE con ICM fue de 10 días. Pseudomonas aeruginosa fue el microorganismo aislado más frecuentemente (34,3%) y 10 (28,6%) infecciones fueron polimicrobianas. Durante el TADE, 4 (11,4%) pacientes presentaron alguna reacción adversa que requirió retirada de ICM, 2 (5,7%) reingresaron y 3 (8,8%) fallecieron (2 muertes relacionadas con infección). Tras 30 días desde el alta, 6 (18,8%) de 32 pacientes tuvieron reingresos no programados (2 relacionados con infección), 6 (18,8%) desarrollaron recurrencia (3 recidivas, 3 reinfecciones) y 1 (3,1%) falleció (sin relación con infección). Veintitrés (71,9%) de 32 pacientes no experimentaron reingreso no programado, recidiva o muerte. Conclusión: La ICM puede ser una opción para ser administrada en programas de TADE en pacientes seleccionados. Se necesitan más estudios para aumentar la evidencia sobre su uso y validar externamente nuestros hallazgos.(AU)

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy with continuous infusion of meropenem: A retrospective analysis of three years of clinical experience.

INTRODUCTION: Data regarding outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) with continuous infusion of meropenem (CIM) remain scarce and controversial. We aimed to analyze its outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients who received OPAT with CIM during a three-year period at a single center in northwest Spain. Demographics, clinical data and OPAT outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Since January 2017-December 2019, 34 patients received 35 OPAT episodes with CIM. The median age was 75 years, and 18 (51.4%) had a Charlson comorbidity index>2. Twelve (34.3%) had respiratory infection, 11 (31.4%) urinary tract infection, and 12 (34.3%) other infections. Twenty-one (60%) received a dose of 6g/day, and 27 (77.1%) received combined antibiotic therapy. The duration of OPAT with CIM was 10 median days. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequently (34.3%) isolated microorganism and 10 (28.6%) infections were polymicrobial. During OPAT and hospital at home unit admission, 4 (11.4%) patients had any adverse reaction that required CIM withdrawal, 2 (5.7%) were readmitted, and 3 (8.8%) died (2 infection-related deaths). After 30 days from discharge 6 (18.8%) of 32 not-censored patients had unplanned readmissions (2 infection-related), 6 (18.8%) developed recurrence (3 relapses, 3 reinfections) and 1 (3.1%) died (none-infection-related death). Twenty-three (71.9%) of these 32 patients did not experience unplanned readmission, recurrence or death. CONCLUSION: CIM can be an option to be administrated in OPAT programs in selected patients. Further studies are warranted to increase evidence regarding its use, and to externally validate our findings.