Sophie E Katz1, Jennifer Crook1,2, Jessica Gillon3, J Eric Stanford4, Li Wang5, Jennifer M Colby4, Ritu Banerjee1. 1. From the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 2. College of Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 4. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of procalcitonin testing in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is not known. We sought to determine the impact of a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment algorithm implemented with antibiotic stewardship (AS) guidance vs. usual care on antibiotic use in critically ill children. METHODS: Single center, pragmatic, randomized prospective clinical trial of critically ill children admitted to an ICU setting and started on intravenous antibiotics from February 15, 2018, to April 11, 2019. Patients were assigned on a monthly basis to either the procalcitonin or usual care arm. The procalcitonin arm had procalcitonin testing on hospital days 0, 1, 2, and 4 and stewardship assistance with algorithm result interpretation. Both arms had routine AS audit and feedback. The primary outcome was median antibiotic days of therapy per patient in the first 14-days after enrollment. RESULTS: Among 270 patients, 137 were in the procalcitonin arm and 133 in the usual care arm. Antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) were not significantly different between the procalcitonin arm (6.6, IQR: 3.1-10.9) and the usual care arm (7.6, IQR: 3-11.8; P = 0.37). More AS recommendations were made in the procalcitonin vs. control arm (54 vs. 37; P = 0.03). Adherence with algorithm-based antibiotic recommendations was high in the procalcitonin arm (70%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in antibiotic DOT between study arms. This trial was underpowered but demonstrates feasibility of using a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment algorithm with AS audit and feedback in the PICU.
BACKGROUND: The utility of procalcitonin testing in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is not known. We sought to determine the impact of a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment algorithm implemented with antibiotic stewardship (AS) guidance vs. usual care on antibiotic use in critically ill children. METHODS: Single center, pragmatic, randomized prospective clinical trial of critically ill children admitted to an ICU setting and started on intravenous antibiotics from February 15, 2018, to April 11, 2019. Patients were assigned on a monthly basis to either the procalcitonin or usual care arm. The procalcitonin arm had procalcitonin testing on hospital days 0, 1, 2, and 4 and stewardship assistance with algorithm result interpretation. Both arms had routine AS audit and feedback. The primary outcome was median antibiotic days of therapy per patient in the first 14-days after enrollment. RESULTS: Among 270 patients, 137 were in the procalcitonin arm and 133 in the usual care arm. Antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) were not significantly different between the procalcitonin arm (6.6, IQR: 3.1-10.9) and the usual care arm (7.6, IQR: 3-11.8; P = 0.37). More AS recommendations were made in the procalcitonin vs. control arm (54 vs. 37; P = 0.03). Adherence with algorithm-based antibiotic recommendations was high in the procalcitonin arm (70%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in antibiotic DOT between study arms. This trial was underpowered but demonstrates feasibility of using a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment algorithm with AS audit and feedback in the PICU.
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: D Stolz; N Smyrnios; P Eggimann; H Pargger; N Thakkar; M Siegemund; S Marsch; A Azzola; J Rakic; B Mueller; M Tamm Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Rachael K Ross; Luke Keele; Sherri Kubis; Andrew J Lautz; Adam C Dziorny; Adam R Denson; Kathleen A O'Connor; Marianne R Chilutti; Scott L Weiss; Jeffrey S Gerber Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Kevin J Downes; Julie C Fitzgerald; Emily Schriver; Craig L K Boge; Michael E Russo; Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Sherri E Kubis; Pam Tolomeo; Warren B Bilker; Jennifer H Han; Ebbing Lautenbach; Susan E Coffin; Jeffrey S Gerber Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Vandack Nobre; Stephan Harbarth; Jean-Daniel Graf; Peter Rohner; Jérôme Pugin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Evelien de Jong; Jos A van Oers; Albertus Beishuizen; Piet Vos; Wytze J Vermeijden; Lenneke E Haas; Bert G Loef; Tom Dormans; Gertrude C van Melsen; Yvette C Kluiters; Hans Kemperman; Maarten J van den Elsen; Jeroen A Schouten; Jörn O Streefkerk; Hans G Krabbe; Hans Kieft; Georg H Kluge; Veerle C van Dam; Joost van Pelt; Laura Bormans; Martine Bokelman Otten; Auke C Reidinga; Henrik Endeman; Jos W Twisk; Ewoudt M W van de Garde; Anne Marie G A de Smet; Jozef Kesecioglu; Armand R Girbes; Maarten W Nijsten; Dylan W de Lange Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Amanda L Hurst; Jason Child; Kelly Pearce; Claire Palmer; James K Todd; Sarah K Parker Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Gurli Baer; Philipp Baumann; Michael Buettcher; Ulrich Heininger; Gerald Berthet; Juliane Schäfer; Heiner C Bucher; Daniel Trachsel; Jacques Schneider; Muriel Gambon; Diana Reppucci; Jessica M Bonhoeffer; Jody Stähelin-Massik; Philipp Schuetz; Beat Mueller; Gabor Szinnai; Urs B Schaad; Jan Bonhoeffer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240