Search

Introduction: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a strategy in mechanically ventilated patients to reduce mortality. Treatment consists of enterally administered non-absorbable antibiotics, i.e., tobramycin. However, most intensive care unit (ICU) patients with SDD appear to have detectable tobramycin serum concentrations. The Rijnstate Hospital implemented a protocol for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of tobramycin in patients at risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the necessity of TDM in these patients and to optimize the current protocol. Methods: This retrospective observational study included ICU patients with SDD treatment for ≥ 7 days and renal failure. These patients were considered eligible for monitoring of tobramycin. Tobramycin serum concentrations, relevant laboratory parameters (i.e., renal function, lactate), and patient data were extracted from the National Intensive Care Evaluation database and the hospital electronic patient data system. Results: In 23 subjects, a total of 43 tobramycin serum concentrations was determined. The median tobramycin serum concentration was 0.33 (IQR 0.17–0.49) mg/L of which 12 (27.9%) samples had concentrations < 0.2 mg/L, 30 (69.8%) had concentrations 0.2–1.0 mg/L and 1 (2.3%) had a toxic concentration > 1.0 mg/L. In 3 (7.0%) cases, an intervention was conducted based on the tobramycin serum concentration. Conclusion: The majority (83.7%) of samples had detectable tobramycin serum concentrations. Monitoring of tobramycin serum concentrations can be considered necessary in patients at risk. However, the current protocol should be optimized to intercept patients more precise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Control of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus fuecium (VRE) in European hospitals is hampered because of widespread asymptomatie carriage of VRE by healthy Europeans. In 2000, our hospital (The University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands) was confronted with a large outbreak of VRE. Intervention. On the basis of genotyping (by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis), epidemic and nonepidemic VRE strains were distinguished, and infection-control measures were exclusively targeted toward epidemic VRE. The outbreak was retrospectively divided into 3 periods of different infection-control measures. Compliance with use of alcohol-based hand rubs was enforced during all periods. Period I involved active surveillance, isolation of carriers, and cohorting (duration, 4 months); preemptive isolation of high-risk patients for VRE colonization was added in period II (7 months); and cohorting and preemptive isolation were abandoned in period III (18 months). Methods. When the outbreak was identified, 27 patients in 6 wards were colonized; 93% were colonized with an epidemic VRE strain. Detection rates of nonepidemic VRE were 3.5%, 3.0%, and 2.9% among 683, 810, and 977 screened patients in periods I, II, and III, respectively, comparable to a prevalence of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%-3.5%) among 600 nonhospitalized persons. The relative risks of detecting epidemic VRE in periods II and III, compared with period I, were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.41-1.10) for period II and 0.02 (95% CI, 0.002- 0.6) for period III. Infection-control measures were withheld for patients colonized with nonepidemic VRE (76 [54%] of 140 patients with a test result positive for VRE). Use of alcohol-based hand rubs increased by 31%-275% in outbreak wards. Conclusion. Genotyping-targeted infection control, isolation of VRE carriers, enhancement of hand-hygiene compliance, and preemptive isolation successfully controlled nosocomial spread of epidemic VRE infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]