Antibiotic de-escalation

Chia sẻ: Nguyen Uyen | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:3

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

72
lượt xem 5
download

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Everyone seems to agree that antibiotic de-escalation therapy seems to make sense. The big question is therefore why aren’t we doing it? Antibiotic de-escalation therapy is the practice of using more powerful antibiotics, earlier in treatment, for a short period of time – and then switching to a less powerful antibiotic once the infection is accurately diagnosed and under control. One could argue that the concept of “hit hard – hit fast” is not new. So why is this the case? I think that part of the conundrum is the disease process itself, which frequently is one of escalation....

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Antibiotic de-escalation

Antibiotic de-escalation Everyone seems to agree that antibiotic de-escalation therapy seems to make sense. The big question is therefore why aren’t we doing it? Antibiotic de-escalation therapy is the practice of using more powerful antibiotics, earlier in treatment, for a short period of time – and then switching to a less powerful antibiotic once the infection is accurately diagnosed and under control. One could argue that the concept of “hit hard – hit fast” is not new. So why is this the case? I think that part of the conundrum is the disease process itself, which frequently is one of escalation. A patient presenting on a ward in hospital may not initially have a “serious” infection. They may be admitted for something quite different, like a broken limb, and have no infection at all. But within a matter of days this situation
can change and, in particular for the more elderly complicated patients with underlying diseases/co-morbidities, the situation can deteriorate very rapidly. “…de-escalation makes good sense and should be practiced.” For example: It would seem unnecessary, foolish even, to commence therapy for a mild chest infection with a very powerful antibiotic when the clinical signs and symptoms do not warrant this. But in some patients what appears to be a mild infection can progress to a more serious clinical situation. Diagnostic techniques in microbiology have still not advanced to the stage where early detection of a causative pathogen can be easily made. It remains the case that a 48 hour period will lapse before microbiological results can be obtained. So what happens then? The results may reveal not one, but several bacteria, are present. This then becomes a sort of bacterial “whodunit”? Are we witnessing a genuine polymicrobial infection or are some of those bacteria simply colonizing and not infecting the patient? Which one is the real culprit and how should we target therapy to deal with it? In some cases the microbiological results reveal…nothing! So the situation is complex. Consideration of the host (patient history, site of infection), the environment (the level of bacterial resistance in that particular unit) and the suitability of available therapy (efficacy and tolerability of the antibiotics at ones disposal) all play a
major part in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Even with microbiological results we may still be dealing with an empiric situation. In some cases the patient will have already received antibiotic therapy but may not be responding clinically. Studies again suggest that in such a situation it is imperative to select an antibiotic agent from a different class. But how well is this understood or practiced? Initial therapy with beta-lactam antibiotics, such as penicillin based compounds or cephalosporin is still commonplace in many units. If initial therapy with these agents is failing then the evidence demands a change of antibiotic class. But frequently, in deteriorating clinical situations, clinicians, in pursuit of de - escalation, may turn to carbapenem type a gents.