RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Addressing the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic: A quality improvement collaborative to optimize the use of antibacterials in Argentine Intensive Care Units
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.12.28.23300542
DO 10.1101/2023.12.28.23300542
A1 Jorro-Barón, Facundo
A1 Loudet, Cecilia
A1 Cornistein, Wanda
A1 Suárez-Anzorena, Inés
A1 Arias-López, Pilar
A1 Balasini, Carina
A1 Cabana, Laura
A1 Cunto, Eleonora
A1 Corral, Rodrigo
A1 Gibbons, Luz
A1 Guglielmino, Marina
A1 Izzo, Gabriela
A1 Lescano, Marianela
A1 Meregalli, Claudia
A1 Orlandi, Cristina
A1 Perre, Fernando
A1 Ratto, María Elena
A1 Rivet, Mariano
A1 Rodríguez, Ana Paula
A1 Rodríguez, Viviana M.
A1 Villegas, Paula Romina
A1 Vitar, Emilse
A1 Roberti, Javier
A1 García-Elorrio, Ezequiel
A1 Rodriguez, Viviana E.
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/28/2023.12.28.23300542.abstract
AB Background Reducing antimicrobial resistance is a global priority that become even more important after the COVID-19 pandemic. To date there is a scarce volume of evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programs from less resourced settings where this phenomenon is bigger. Our aim was to improve the quality of antibacterials prescription in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country.Methods We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine ICUs over an 11-month period, with a 16-week baseline (BP) and 32-week Intervention (IP) periods. Our co-designed intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions, and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods, along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training.Results We enrolled 912 patients, with 357 in baseline period (BP) and 555 in implementation period (IP). The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (12, 21) vs. 15 (11, 20); p=0.036) and SOFA scores (6 (4, 9) vs. 5 (3, 8); p=0.006), sepsis (36.1% vs. 31.6%, p<0.001), and septic shock (40.0% vs. 33.8%, p<0.001). Days of antibacterial therapy were similar between groups (IP 1112.2, BP 1133.4, RR 0.98 (0.95-1.02); p=0.2973) and the antibacterial Daily Define Dose was lower in IP group (IP, 1193.0; BP, 1301.0; RR, 0.92 (0.89, 0.95); p=0.0001). The rate of adequate antibacterial adjustment was higher during the IP (62.0% vs. 45.3%, p<0.001). We observed a lower rate of ventilation-associated pneumonia and catheter-associated urinary tract infections related to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in the IP. There was a noticeable improvement in the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Assessment Framework compared to baseline.Conclusion The implementation of a post pandemic antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterials utilization, reducing HAIs related to MDRO while also enhancing IPC measures.What is already known on this topicHealthcare-associated infections represent a global healthcare issue, particularly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, where their occurrence is nearly three times higher.Approximately 50% of antimicrobial use is deemed unnecessary or inappropriate, necessitating the development of widely accessible stewardship methods.The misuse and overuse of antibacterials adversely affect patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).Further research is urgently required to determine the most effective ways to implement ASPs in LMICs.What this study addsBy establishing a quality improvement collaborative (QIC), we showcased an improvement in antibacterial utilization within ICUs in a low- to middle-income country.Additionally, a reduction in healthcare-associated infections is evident.Moreover, the QIC effectively strengthened the capabilities of infection control and prevention in participating ICUs.How this study might affect research, practice, or policyThis study is among the initial endeavors in a middle-income country to evaluate the efficacy and essential strategies for establishing antimicrobial stewardship programs.This study could serve as a foundational reference for upcoming teams aiming to introduce similar programs in the region.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementPFIZER COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM ID: 68339261Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approvals and dates from Institutional Review Board of Ministry of Health of Neuquen - Hospital Castro Rendon (05/07/2022), Institutional Review Board of Hospital de infecciosas F. J. Muniz (11/15/2021), Institutional Review Board of province of Jujuy (12/22/2021), Institutional Review Board of the Hospital Ignacio Pirovano (11/10/2021), Institutional Review Board of the Hospital General de Agudos Bernardino Rivadavia (01/10/2022), Institutional Review Board of HOSPITAL SAN MARTIN DE LA PLATA (11/25/2021), Institutional Review Board of Hospital Francisco Lopez Lima (11/20/2021), Institutional Review Board of Hospital Simplemente Evita (04/07/2022), Institutional Review Board of Hospital Evita de Lanus (01/20/2022)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yeshttps://osf.io/5v7xa/?view_only=111e421428c5463385190685e6fa1cca