Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310806›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2022

Re-evaluation of cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam to decrease use of carbapenems in extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (REDUCE-BSI).

Catherine H Vu, Veena Venugopalan, Barbara A Santevecchi, Stacy A Voils, Reuben Ramphal, Kartikeya Cherabuddi, Kathryn DeSear

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Piperacillin-tazobactam tolerability in patients with a labeled penicillin allergy (PIPPEN).Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Catherine H VuDepartment of Pharmacy, University Medical Center New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Veena VenugopalanDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9424-5783
Barbara A SantevecchiDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5239-8303
Stacy A VoilsDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6741-5249
Reuben RamphalDepartment of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9087-1816
Kartikeya CherabuddiDepartment of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Kathryn DeSearDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Florida Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-9075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To re-examine the use of noncarbapenems (NCBPs), specifically piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) and cefepime (FEP), for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (ESBL-E BSIs). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary-care, academic medical center. Patients: The study included patients hospitalized between May 2016 and May 2019 with a positive blood culture for ESBL-E. Patients were excluded if they received treatment with antibiotics other than meropenem, ertapenem, PTZ, or FEP. Patients were also excluded if they were aged <18 years, received antibiotics for <24 hours, were treated for polymicrobial BSI, or received concomitant antibiotic therapy for a separate gram-negative infection. Methods: We compared CBPs with FEP or PTZ for the treatment of ESBL-E BSI. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, microbiologic cure, infection recurrence, and resistance development. Results: Data from 114 patients were collected and analyzed; 74 (65%) patients received carbapenem (CBP) therapy and 40 (35%) patients received a NCBP (30 received FEP and 10 received PTZ). The overall in-hospital mortality was 6% (N = 7), with a higher death rate in the CBP arm than in the N-CBP arm, (8% vs 3%; Conclusion: Compared to CBPs, FEP and PTZ did not result in greater mortality or decreased clinical efficacy for the treatment of ESBL-E BSI caused by susceptible organisms.

Identifiers

PMID36310806
PMCPMC9615022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.