ArticleInfection2020
Clinical and economic effects of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention in a surgical intensive care unit.
Article in Infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic Stewardship in Surgical Departments.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Carbapenem Use in the Last Days of Life: A Nationwide Korean Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of Antibiotics Within the Last 14 Days of Life in Korean Patients: A Nationwide Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Review of antibiotic prescriptions as part of antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results from a pilot implementation at two provincial-level hospitals in Viet Nam.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2023Article
- The Need of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Post-Operative Infectious Complications of Abdominal Surgery.Visceral medicine · 2022Review
- Practical Concerns about the Metrics and Methods of Financial Outcome Measurement in Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2022Review
- Impact of a 4-year antimicrobial stewardship program implemented in a Greek tertiary hospital.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the effects of an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) programme designed as a once-weekly "Prospective Audit with Feedback and Intervention" in a surgical intensive care unit.
methodsRetrospective, pre-/post-observational comparison of antimicrobial drug use, patient safety, and cost of care.
resultsDuring the 12-month AMS period the consumption of antimicrobials dropped by 18.3%. While the consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics decreased by 17.4% the consumption of narrow spectrum penicillins increased by 89.9%, reaching 26.3% of the total antibiotic consumption. Treatment outcomes and rates of Clostridioides difficile infections before and during the programme were not significantly different. The reduction in antimicrobial costs of 46,393€ was offset by an expenditure of 8,047€, for both human resources and additional radiological procedures, resulting in a net saving of 38,346€. 92% of the antibiotic related savings were due to the reduced use of tigecycline and linezolid, and decreases in drug retail prices.
conclusionsAMS programmes can both reduce the consumption of antimicrobials and modify their spectrum in intensive care without negatively affecting treatment outcomes. The resulting cost savings are negligible. The incentive to implement such programmes cannot, therefore, be immediate institutional cost savings, but should be rather the long-term goal of reducing antibiotic resistance, and its consequences, in terms of long-term health care costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32277409What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.