Premium
Intravenous push versus intravenous piggyback beta‐lactams for the empiric management of gram‐negative bacteremia
Author(s) -
Marsh Kassandra,
Dubrovskaya Yanina,
Jen ShinPung Polly,
Ahmed Nabeela,
Decano Arnold,
Siegfried Justin,
Papadopoulos John,
Merchan Cristian
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.622
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2710
pISSN - 0269-4727
DOI - 10.1111/jcpt.13291
Subject(s) - medicine , bacteremia , interquartile range , cefepime , meropenem , sepsis , clinical endpoint , antibiotics , retrospective cohort study , intravenous therapy , pharmacodynamics , urinary system , anesthesia , emergency medicine , intensive care medicine , pharmacokinetics , clinical trial , antibiotic resistance , imipenem , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
What is known and objective Nationwide shortages of small‐volume parenteral solutions (SVPS) compelled hospitals to develop strategies including the use of intravenous push (IVP) administration of antibiotics to reserve SVPS for absolute necessities. It is unknown if administration of beta‐lactam antibiotics (BL) via IVP results in worse clinical outcomes compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) due to the potential inability to achieve pharmacodynamic targets. Methods Our health‐system implemented a mandatory IVP action plan for BL from October 2017 to September 2018. This was a retrospective study of adult patients with GNB who received empiric therapy with IVPB (30 minutes) or IVP (5 minutes) cefepime (FEP) or meropenem (MEM) for at least 2 days. Endpoints included clinical response, microbiological clearance and mortality. All data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range). Results The final cohort included 213 patients (IVPB n = 105, IVP n = 108). The primary source of bacteremia was urinary, with Escherichia coli being the primary pathogen. Escalation of therapy was similar between groups (15 [14%] vs 11 [10%], P = .36) at a median of 3 days ( P = .68). No significant differences were observed in any secondary endpoints including microbiological clearance, bacteremia recurrence, time to defervescence, WBC normalization, vasopressor duration or in‐hospital mortality. What is new and conclusion Our findings suggest no differences in clinical response with the use of IVP compared to IVPB FEP and MEM for treatment of GNB. This form of administration may be considered as a fluid conservation strategy in times of shortage.