BACKGROUND: Antibiotic cycling or rotation of antimicrobial agent classes has been proposed to combat antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital between December 1, 2000, and September 30, 2002, as part of a three-center trial under the aegis of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients admitted to the medical ICU for > 48 h were enrolled, and demographic and microbiological data were collected until discharge or death. Baseline data were collected for four months (12/1/00 to 3/31/01) and compared with data collected after institution of a quarterly cycling regimen (cycle order: Cefepime, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem-cilastatin) for the empiric treatment of gram-negative infections (4/01/01 to 9/30/02). RESULTS: Of 1,074 consecutive admissions, 301 were enrolled, 59 during baseline and 242 during the cycling periods. An outbreak of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed cycle 2 (cefepime), coinciding with cycles 3 and 4 (ciprofloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam) (80.0 and 73.7 vs. 37.3 isolates/100 patients enrolled for cycles 3/4 and baseline, respectively; p = 0.04). Acinetobacter spp. were isolated less frequently during the cycling periods (15.3 vs. 1.2 isolates/100 patients for baseline and cycling periods, respectively; p > or = 0.01). The crude hospital mortality rate was similar (24/59 [41%] baseline vs. 73/242 [30%] cycling; p = 0.16) between periods. However, the percentage of patients admitted to the medical ICU who subsequently acquired an infection followed by in-hospital death was higher at baseline than during cycling: 15/59 (25.4%) vs. 33/242 (13.6%)(p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the cycling strategy was not definitively associated with beneficial changes in unit epidemiology and in fact may have contributed to an outbreak of multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa.
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic cycling or rotation of antimicrobial agent classes has been proposed to combat antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital between December 1, 2000, and September 30, 2002, as part of a three-center trial under the aegis of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients admitted to the medical ICU for > 48 h were enrolled, and demographic and microbiological data were collected until discharge or death. Baseline data were collected for four months (12/1/00 to 3/31/01) and compared with data collected after institution of a quarterly cycling regimen (cycle order: Cefepime, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem-cilastatin) for the empiric treatment of gram-negative infections (4/01/01 to 9/30/02). RESULTS: Of 1,074 consecutive admissions, 301 were enrolled, 59 during baseline and 242 during the cycling periods. An outbreak of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed cycle 2 (cefepime), coinciding with cycles 3 and 4 (ciprofloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam) (80.0 and 73.7 vs. 37.3 isolates/100 patients enrolled for cycles 3/4 and baseline, respectively; p = 0.04). Acinetobacter spp. were isolated less frequently during the cycling periods (15.3 vs. 1.2 isolates/100 patients for baseline and cycling periods, respectively; p > or = 0.01). The crude hospital mortality rate was similar (24/59 [41%] baseline vs. 73/242 [30%] cycling; p = 0.16) between periods. However, the percentage of patients admitted to the medical ICU who subsequently acquired an infection followed by in-hospital death was higher at baseline than during cycling: 15/59 (25.4%) vs. 33/242 (13.6%)(p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the cycling strategy was not definitively associated with beneficial changes in unit epidemiology and in fact may have contributed to an outbreak of multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa.
Authors: Stefany Moreno-Gamez; Alison L Hill; Daniel I S Rosenbloom; Dmitri A Petrov; Martin A Nowak; Pleuni S Pennings Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: K de With; F Allerberger; S Amann; P Apfalter; H-R Brodt; T Eckmanns; M Fellhauer; H K Geiss; O Janata; R Krause; S Lemmen; E Meyer; H Mittermayer; U Porsche; E Presterl; S Reuter; B Sinha; R Strauß; A Wechsler-Fördös; C Wenisch; W V Kern Journal: Infection Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Douglas Slain; Arif R Sarwari; Karen O Petros; Richard L McKnight; Renee B Sager; Charles J Mullett; Alison Wilson; John G Thomas; Kathryn Moffett; H Carlton Palmer; Harakh V Dedhia Journal: Crit Care Res Pract Date: 2011-05-19
Authors: Pleun J van Duijn; Walter Verbrugghe; Philippe G Jorens; Fabian Spöhr; Dirk Schedler; Maria Deja; Andreas Rothbart; Djillali Annane; Christine Lawrence; Matjaz Jereb; Katja Seme; Franc Šifrer; Viktorija Tomič; Francisco Estevez; Jandira Carneiro; Stephan Harbarth; Marc J M Bonten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Nazaret Cobos-Trigueros; Mar Solé; Pedro Castro; Jorge Luis Torres; Mariano Rinaudo; Elisa De Lazzari; Laura Morata; Cristina Hernández; Sara Fernández; Alex Soriano; José María Nicolás; Josep Mensa; Jordi Vila; José Antonio Martínez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pia Abel zur Wiesch; Roger Kouyos; Sören Abel; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Sebastian Bonhoeffer Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 6.823