English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Cefepime is a 4 th  generation cephalosporin frequently used for empiric sepsis therapy. Dose- and MIC-dependent efficacy of cefepime is supported by the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute, however its use in infections due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing  Enterobacterales  is controversial. This study aims to compare outcomes in patients given empiric meropenem or cefepime for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by ceftriaxone-resistant  E. coli  and  K. pneumoniae .    Methods  This single-center retrospective cohort included adults hospitalized from 2010 - 2020 and received empiric cefepime or meropenem for BSI caused by ceftriaxone-resistant  E. coli  or  K. pneumoniae . In the cefepime group, only organisms with MIC ≤ 2 mg/L were included. Patients who received the empiric agent for < 48 hours, or received an additional active agent within 48 hours were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes were recurrent infection, readmission, and time to clinical stability. Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact was used for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney-U for continuous variables. Inverse probability treatment weighing was used to determine the impact of empirical therapy on clinical stability at 48 hours.Results  Fifty-four patients were included: 36 received empiric meropenem, 18 received cefepime. There were no significant differences in baseline severity of illness or comorbid conditions. Urinary source was less common in the meropenem group compared to cefepime (52.8 vs 83.8%, p=0.028) (Table 1). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between meropenem and cefepime (2.8 vs 11.1%, p = 0.255). More patients achieved clinical stability at 48 hours on empiric meropenem compared to cefepime (75 vs 44.4%, p = 0.027), and time to clinical stability was significantly shorter (median 21.3 vs 38.5 hours, p = 0.016). Most patients in the meropenem and cefepime groups completed definitive treatment with a carbapenem (88.9 vs 72.2%, p=0.142).   Table 1: ResultsSummary of primary and secondary outcomes    Conclusion  There was no difference in mortality between patients receiving empiric cefepime for BSI due to ceftriaxone-resistant  Enterobacterales,  with cefepime MIC ≤ 2 mg/L, compared to meropenem; however, time to clinical stability was significantly delayed.Disclosures    James Kirby, MD, D(ABMM ),  First Light Biosciences  (Board Member) TECAN, Inc.  (Research Grant or Support)

open forum infectious diseases

1228. Outcomes Associated with Empiric Cefepime or Meropenem for Bloodstream Infections Caused by Ceftriaxone-Resistant, Cefepime-Susceptible <i>Escherichia coli</i> and <i>Klebsiella pneumoniae</i>

1228. Outcomes Associated with Empiric Cefepime or Meropenem for Bloodstream Infections Caused by Ceftriaxone-Resistant, Cefepime-Susceptible Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae