IMPACT Score for Traumatic Brain Injury: Validation of the Prognostic Tool in a Spanish Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to validate the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI) model in a Spanish cohort of patients with moderate-severe TBI (traumatic brain injury). SETTING: Two level I neurotrauma centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to these hospitals between 2011 and 2014 with a diagnosis of TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. MAIN MEASURES: We collected prospectively the clinical variables included in the IMPACT models. Outcome evaluation was prospectively done at 6-month follow-up according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale. RESULTS: A total of 290 patients were included in the study. Forty-seven patients (16.2%) died within 6 months post-TBI, and 74 patients (25.5%) had an unfavorable outcome. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed that there was no difference between observed and predicted outcomes; hence, the 3 models displayed adequate calibration for predicting 6-month mortality or unfavorable outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that the 3 models (Core, Extended, and Lab) could accurately discriminate between favorable and unfavorable outcomes, as well as between survival and mortality (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The IMPACT model validates prediction of 6-month outcomes in a Spanish population of moderate-severe TBI. IMPACT Lab model is the one that presents a higher discriminative capacity. These results encourage the implementation of the IMPACT model as a prognostic tool in the management of patients with TBI.

Antibiotic de-escalation in the ICU: how is it best done?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An antimicrobial policy consisting of the initial use of wide-spectrum antimicrobials followed by a reassessment of treatment when culture results are available is termed de-escalation therapy. Our aim is to examine the safety and feasibility of antibiotic de-escalation in critically ill patients providing practical tips about how to accomplish this strategy in the critical care setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous studies have assessed the rates of de-escalation therapy (range from 10 to 60%) in patients with severe sepsis or ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as the factors associated with de-escalation. De-escalation generally refers to a reduction in the spectrum of administered antibiotics through the discontinuation of antibiotics or switching to an agent with a narrower spectrum. Diverse studies have identified the adequacy of initial therapy as a factor independently associated with de-escalation. Negative impact on different outcome measures has not been reported in the observational studies. Two randomized clinical trials have evaluated this strategy in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia or severe sepsis. These trials alert us about the possibility that this strategy may be linked to a higher rate of reinfections but without an impact on mortality. SUMMARY: Antibiotic de-escalation is a well tolerated management strategy in critically ill patients but unfortunately is not widely adopted.

Adequate antibiotic therapy prior to ICU admission in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock reduces hospital mortality.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with severe sepsis and septic shock as cause of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, we analyze the impact on mortality of adequate antimicrobial therapy initiated before ICU admission. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study enrolling patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock from January 2008 to September 2013. The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. We considered two groups for comparisons: patients who received adequate antibiotic treatment before or after the admission to the ICU. RESULTS: A total of 926 septic patients were admitted to ICU, and 638 (68.8%) had available microbiological isolation: 444 (69.6%) received adequate empirical antimicrobial treatment prior to ICU and 194 (30.4%) after admission. Global hospital mortality in patients that received treatment before ICU admission, between 0-6h ICU, 6-12h ICU, 12-24h ICU and after 24 hours since ICU admission were 31.3, 53.2, 57.1, 50 and 50.8% (p<0.001). The multivariate analysis showed that urinary focus (odds ratio (OR) 0.20; 0.09-0.42; p<0.001) and adequate treatment prior to ICU admission (OR 0.37; 0.24-0.56; p<0.001) were protective factors whereas APACHE II score (OR 1.10; 1.07-1.14; p<0.001), septic shock (OR 2.47; 1.57-3.87; p<0.001), respiratory source (OR 1.91; 1.12-3.21; p=0.016), cirrhosis (OR 3.74; 1.60-8.76; p=0.002) and malignancy (OR 1.65; 1.02-2.70; p=0.042) were variables independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Adequate treatment prior to ICU was a protective factor for mortality in patients with severe sepsis (n=236) or in septic shock (n=402). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of adequate antimicrobial therapy before ICU admission is decisive for the survival of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Our efforts should be directed to assure the correct administration antibiotics before ICU admission in patients with sepsis.

Application of new indicators to assess the quality of antimicrobial use in intensive care units.

This study explored the feasibility of a bundle of indicators aimed at assessing the quality of antimicrobial use in intensive care units (ICUs) through an observational prospective study spanning 12 quarters (January 2019-December 2021) in a 1290-bed teaching hospital in Spain. Members of the antimicrobial stewardship programme team selected the indicators to analyse the quality of antimicrobial use based on consumption data from a list proposed in a previous study. Antimicrobial use in the ICU was measured as defined daily dose (DDD) per 100 occupied bed-days. Trends and points of change were analysed with segmented regression. The intravenous macrolides/intravenous respiratory fluoroquinolones ratio in the ICU increased progressively, although not significantly, by 11.14% per quarter, likely related to prioritization of the use of macrolides in serious community-acquired pneumonia and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A remarkable upward trend of 2.5% per quarter was detected in the anti-methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus/anti-methicillin-resistant S. aureus agents ratio in the ICU, which could be explained by the low prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus at the study centre. Patterns of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid/piperacillin-tazobactam ratio and diversification of anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams showed an increment in use over the study. The use of these novel indicators provides additional information for the current analysis of DDD. Implementation is feasible, and led to the detection of patterns that agree with local guidelines and cumulative antibiogram reports, and foster targeted improvement actions within antimicrobial stewardship programmes.

De-escalation of empirical therapy is associated with lower mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSES: We set out to assess the safety and the impact on in-hospital and 90-day mortality of antibiotic de-escalation in patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: We carried out a prospective observational study enrolling patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. De-escalation was defined as discontinuation of an antimicrobial agent or change of antibiotic to one with a narrower spectrum once culture results were available. To control for confounding variables, we performed a conventional regression analysis and a propensity score (PS) adjusted-multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 712 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock at ICU admission were treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Of these, 628 were evaluated (84 died before cultures were available). De-escalation was applied in 219 patients (34.9%). By multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with in-hospital mortality were septic shock, SOFA score the day of culture results, and inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy, whereas de-escalation therapy was a protective factor [Odds-Ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.93). Analysis of the 403 patients with adequate empirical therapy revealed that the factor associated with mortality was SOFA score on the day of culture results, whereas de-escalation therapy was a protective factor (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.89). The PS-adjusted logistic regression models confirmed that de-escalation therapy was a protective factor in both analyses. De-escalation therapy was also a protective factor for 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock is a safe strategy associated with a lower mortality. Efforts to increase the frequency of this strategy are fully justified.