抗生素不合理使用121例原因分析

目的:了解我院抗生素使用情况,以指导临床合理应用抗生素。方法:随机抽查我院2007年6～12月住院病历680份,以2004年卫生部颁布的《抗菌药物临床应用指导原则》为标准,将抗生素不合理使用情况分为10类进行调查分析,包括是否使用抗生素、预防用药指征、联合用药指征、药物选择、给药途径及方法、剂量及疗程、药敏试验、病程记录、围术期用药及分级使用。结果:680份病历中486例使用抗生素,使用率为71.5%,其中预防性用药291例,占59.9%,治疗性用药186例,占38.3%。以《抗菌药物临床应用指导原则》为标准评估,486例中121例属于不合理用药,占24.9%。结论:制订院内抗生素应用细则,加强临床药学监管与服务的力度,使抗生素的应用更为合理,乃当务之急。     

549例住院患者抗菌药物应用调查分析

目的:了解我院住院患者抗菌药物使用情况,提高合理用药水平。方法:调查我院2010年10月15日~11月15日所有出院病历共695份,其中使用抗菌药物549例,对抗菌药物应用情况进行回顾性分析。结果:我院抗菌药物使用率为78.99%;其中单种抗菌药物的使用占63.20%,二联的占31.88%,三联的占4.92%,住院手术患者预防性应用占71.34%,手术患者抗菌药物使用率100.00%。结论:我院抗菌药物使用率较高,临床用药存在不合理现象。应加强抗菌药物合理应用的监督管理,以避免抗菌药物的不合理应用。     

抗菌药物临床使用调查

目的：了解抗菌药物使用的情况，为临床合理使用抗菌药物提供依据。方法：随机抽取2005年1～12月份住院病历626份，对抗菌药物应用进行回顾性调查。结果：626份病历中，使用抗菌药物者为426例，占68．05％，单独用药占35．92％，二联用药占45．77％，三-四联用药以上占18．31%；以静脉给药为主，占67．84；预防性用药占46．24％；抗菌药物应用头三位分别是头孢类、青霉素类、喹诺酮类。结论：临床中存在不合理应用抗菌药物现象，应进一步加强对抗菌药物的临床管理。     

外科患者抗生素临床应用现状分析

目的 了解外科抗生素应用情况,为临床安全、合理、有效的使用抗生素提供参考依据.方法 随机抽取2010年9月份外科出院病历300份,对抗生素的应用、联用及预防性用药情况进行回顾性分析.结果 在所调查的300份病历中,有232例患者使用了抗生素,占77.3％(232/300),其中197例手术治疗,35例非手术治疗.197例手术患者中预防用药156例(79.2％),治疗用药41例(20.8％)；35例非手术患者全部治疗用药；232例抗生素使用患者中,单一用药107例(46.1％),双联用药121例(52.2％),三联用药4例(1.7％).结论 加强抗菌药物的应用与管理,规范临床使用抗生素势在必行.     

我院Ⅰ类切口手术围手术期预防性抗菌药物使用情况调查分析

目的 调查景德镇市第一人民医院Ⅰ类切口手术围手术期预防性抗菌药物临床使用情况并进行分析,以提高合理用药水平.方法 随机抽取2010年1-12月Ⅰ类切口手术出院患者的病历140份,根据<抗菌药物临床应用指导原则>对围手术期预防性抗菌药物临床应用进行评价.结果 Ⅰ类切口手术围手术期预防性抗菌药物使用率为72.9%(102/140).在预防性抗菌药物使用的102例中,有91例存在不合理现象,占89.2%;不合理类型主要为药物选择不合理(52.9%)、用药时机不合理(52.9%)、无指征用药(35.3%)等.使用频率较高的抗菌药物是头孢替唑、头孢呋辛钠、头孢哌酮他唑巴坦.结论 景德镇市第一人民医院Ⅰ类切口手术围手术期预防性抗菌药物的临床应用存在不合理现象,应强化临床医师合理应用抗菌药物的意识,加强围手术期抗菌药物临床应用的管理,提高合理用药水平.     

住院患者抗菌药物临床应用分析

目的了解我院住院患者抗菌药物的临床应用现状及存在问题,为临床合理使用抗菌药物提供参考。方法采用回顾性调查方法 ,对本院2008年11月2009年4月的出院病历资料进行统计、分析。结果共调查病历1000份,抗菌药物总使用率58.70%;其中预防用药使用率62.35%,治疗用药使用率37.65%;联合用药的比例为37.31%;不合理用药占19.76%。结论抗菌药物使用率较高,且使用存在一些不合理现象。医院应加强监管,对存在的问题应制订相应措施。     

我院住院患者合理用药情况调查分析

目的调查景德镇市第一人民医院住院患者用药情况,以提高合理用药水平。方法随机抽取本院2009年10-12月住院患者病历200份,统计与分析药物使用情况。结果 200份病历有81份使用抗菌药物,抗菌药物的使用率为40.5%。81例患者共使用121例次的抗菌药物,平均每例使用抗菌药物1.5种。一线抗菌药物使用比例偏低,二线抗菌药物使用比例偏高。同时三代头孢的过度使用诱导了产ESBLs多重耐药菌的产生。使用了8种中成药注射剂,在溶媒的选择及药物剂量的使用存在不合理性。结论本院药物的使用基本合理,但在抗菌药物及中成药注射剂临床使用上还存在不合理性。     

ICU患者应用碳青霉烯类抗菌药物治疗时发生抗生素相关性腹泻的相关因素分析

目的探讨ICU患者应用碳青霉烯类抗菌药物治疗时发生抗生素相关性腹泻(antibiotic-associated diarrhea, AAD)的相关因素。方法应用碳青霉烯类抗生素治疗的ICU患者98例,其中发生AAD者35例为AAD组,未发生AAD者63例为非AAD组。比较2组临床资料,采用多因素logistic回归分析应用碳青霉烯类抗生素治疗的ICU患者发生AAD的危险因素。结果 98例ICU患者中AAD发生率为35.71%;AAD组患者年龄[(62.06±23.44)岁]大于非AAD组[(48.03±20.61)岁](P0.05),男性、高血压比率(82.86%、48.57%)高于非AAD组(57.14%、20.63%)(P0.05),ICU住院时间[(18.77±10.85)d]和抗生素使用时间[(14.60±7.85)d]长于非AAD组[(12.49±8.48)、(9.76±5.63)d](P0.05),联合应用抗真菌药物比率(84.62%)高于非AAD组(60.42%)(P0.05),糖尿病比率、肠外营养、益生菌、质子泵抑制剂应用比率及入ICU时白蛋白水平、APACHEⅡ评分与非AAD组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);男性(OR=3.276,95%CI:1.041～10.310,P=0.043)、联合应用加酶抑制剂抗菌药物(OR=3.034,95%CI:1.047～8.788,P=0.041)是ICU患者应用碳青霉烯类抗菌药物治疗发生AAD的独立危险因素。结论 ICU患者发生AAD时住院时间和抗菌药物使用时间较长,联合应用抗真菌药物或加酶抑制剂抗菌药物可能增加应用碳青霉烯类抗菌药物治疗的ICU患者发生AAD的风险。     

住院患者抗菌药物使用调查结果分析与对策

目的提高临床医师抗菌药物使用的合理性,了解抗菌药物临床应用状况,减少医院感染的发生,以采取有效的干预措施。方法按照统一的自制表格,随机抽查2008年5月出院病历204份。结果全院抗菌药物使用率69．1％。主要存在的问题有外科系统预防性使用抗菌药物用药指征过宽,围术期使用不规范,抗菌药物趋向高档化,病原学送检率低。结论建立药物监测系统,制定抗菌药物应用细则,重视病原学检测,定期对临床住院患者应用抗菌药物进行调查,促进合理使用抗菌药物。     

302例烧伤病人抗生素应用调查分析

抗生素的合理应用是烧伤治疗的重要环节。烧伤患者除局部应用抗菌药物外，预防性和治疗性的全身应用也是普遍的。为了解某医院烧伤患者抗生素的使用情况，对该院烧伤患者的302例病历做了回顾性调查，总结分析其中抗菌药物使用是否合理。     

The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonisation and infection rate in multiple trauma patients

122 multiple trauma patients staying in the ICU for 5 or more days and needing mechanical ventilation were investigated to determine the effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on prevention of infection. The (retrospectively studied) control group of 59 patients received no antibiotic prophylaxis. The infection rate during ICU-stay was 81%. Most infections were caused by potentially pathogenic microorganisms (PPM) from the oral cavity or the intestines (i.e. endogenous infections). The oropharynx and the intestines were rapidly colonised with ICU-associated gram-negative bacilli. After 2 weeks more than 80% of patients were found colonised. This secondary colonisation of the digestive tract is a very important stage in the pathogenesis of infections. Sixty-three patients were selectively decontaminated with nonabsorbable antibiotics, administered through the gastric tube even if peristalsis was absent. Emphasis was laid on the selective decontamination of the oral cavity, using topical application of an antibiotic paste. With this technique the oral cavity was free of PPM within 3 days in most patients. No secondary colonisation was found. Rectal colonisation decreased significantly after 5 days. Secondary colonisation occurred in 9 patients with PPM sensitive to the antibiotics used. The prophylactic regimen included systemic cefotaxim, directed against early endogenous infection. The suppression and after some time the absence of the endogenous source of PPM resulted in a significant reduction of colonisation and infection. The total infection rate decreased to 16%.     

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Pacemaker Implantation: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Prophylactic antibiotics are frequently prescribed for patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation even though data confirming their effectiveness are limited. Five hundred patients requiring elective permanent pacemaker implantation or generator replacement were prospectively randomized either to receive or not receive prophylactic antibiotic treatment at the time of implantation. The implantation site was treated with 10% povidone-iodine solution and 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine preoperatively. The wound were inspected for evidence of infection at 3 days and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postimplantation. Three patients (two receiving prophylactic antibiotics and one no antibiotics) developed pacemaker pocket infection; Staphylococcus aureus was the pathogenic organism in each case (P = 0.56). Eighteen patients developed clinical evidence of superficial wound inflammation requiring antibiotic treatment but not pacemaker removal. Six had received prophylactic antibiotics and 12 had not (P = 0.27). We conclude that pacemaker pocket infection is unusual with careful preoperative skin preparation and close postoperative follow-up. Under these circumstances prophylactic antibiotic treatment is of no practical value.     

Utilization of Prophylactic Antibiotics After Nasal Packing for Epistaxis

BackgroundThere have been few investigations examining the benefits, consequences, and patterns of use for prophylactic antibiotics for nasal packing in the emergency department setting. Given the frequency of epistaxis in the emergency department, it is an ideal setting to study the efficacy and utilization patterns of prophylactic antibiotics in nasal packing.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess both rates of utilization and evidence of benefit for prophylactic antibiotics in patients with nasal packing for epistaxis.MethodsA single-institution retrospective review of 275 cases of anterior nasal packing in an urban emergency department between September 2013 and April 2017 was performed. Chi-square statistical analysis was used to evaluate results.ResultsAmong 275 cases studied, there were no instances of toxic shock syndrome. Roughly 73% of patients with nonabsorbable packing received prophylactic antibiotics. Only one (1.1%) case of sinusitis was noted among the nonabsorbable packing with prophylaxis group, with no such complication in the nonprophylaxis group. In contrast, 95% of patients with absorbable nasal packing were not given prophylactic antibiotics. Analysis of all cases given prophylactic antibiotics vs. no prophylaxis, regardless of packing type, revealed no statistically significant difference in the development of acute sinusitis (1% vs. 0.56%; p = 0.6793).ConclusionsThere was no observed advantage or disadvantage to using prophylactic antibiotics in anterior nasal packing in the emergency department, regardless of whether patients received absorbable or nonabsorbable packing. However, patients who receive nonabsorbable nasal packing were more likely to receive antibiotic prophylaxis.     

内外科住院患者1251例应用抗生素情况调查

目的了解抗生素应用现状,为规范抗生素合理使用提供科学依据。方法采用回顾性调查的方法,对内科和外科系统出院病历的抗生素使用情况进行调查。结果共调查病历1 251份,抗生素使用率为79.62%,联合用药率为51.61%,以二联为主占44.58%,预防用药率56.02%,手术患者抗生素使用率100%,Ⅰ类和Ⅱ类切口术后用药>3 d占86.70%,抗生素使用前三位为左氧氟沙星、青霉素、甲硝唑,临床标本送检率为21.00%。结论内外科住院患者抗生素使用存在不合理之处,加强抗生素合理使用的管理十分必要。     

Antibiotic prophylaxis for oral lacerations: our emergency department’s experience

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the emergency physician (EP) practice of prescribing prophylactic antibiotics for patients with oral lacerations. A secondary outcome measure was the infection rate of those who were or were not prescribed antibiotics.

Methods

The study was a retrospective chart review of 323 patients who presented to a large urban emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 with an oral laceration.

Results

Of the 323 charts reviewed, topical and/or systemic antibiotics were prescribed in the ED to 62 % (199/323) of patients. Of those patients, 38 % (75/199) received only topical antibiotics, 34 % (68/199) received only systemic antibiotics, and 28 % (56/199) were prescribed topical and systemic antibiotics. Thirty-eight percent (124/323) of patients received no antibiotics. Eighteen percent (58/323) of patients returned for follow-up with an infection rate of 10 % (6/58). There was a statistical difference in rates of infection between patients who received antibiotics and who did not receive antibiotics and a statistical difference in rates of infection between patients with complex lacerations who received and did not receive antibiotic.

Conclusions

This study shows that there is a considerable amount of practice variance in prescribing prophylactic antibiotics for oral lacerations among EPs in our ED. Due to the poor follow-up rate, an accurate infection rate could not be determined. In the future, adequately powered randomized controlled studies may provide compelling data for or against the necessity for prophylactic antibiotic use for oral lacerations.

     

血管介入治疗预防性应用抗菌药物对术后感染发生率影响的临床研究

目的探讨血管内介入治疗预防性应用抗生素是否有效减少术后发生感染,为临床抗生素应用策略选择提供参考。方法选取介入病区接受血管内介入治疗的79例住院患者,将其随机分为观察组40例和对照组39例。观察组术前预防性应用抗生素1次,对照组则不给与预防性应用抗生素,对比两组患者术后相关症状以及感染的发生情况。结果观察组术后出现发热、中性粒细胞升高、C反应蛋白升高的比率与对照组的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组患者接受介入治疗后,发生感染的有2例次,均为败血症,两组患者各有1例次。没有发生介入穿刺部位以及靶器官的感染。观察组介入治疗后的感染率为2.08%,对照组介入治疗后的感染率为2.27%,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论血管介入治疗预防性应用抗生素与术后感染的发生没有明显的相关性,没有必要预防性应用抗生素。     

降钙素原联合标准方法指导儿童社区获得性肺炎抗菌药物治疗的临床价值

目的：评价降钙素原（PCT ）联合标准方法在指导儿童社区获得性肺炎（CAP）抗菌药物治疗中的价值。方法对190例可疑合并细菌感染的小儿非重症病毒性肺炎进行回顾性分析。分为联合方法组和标准治疗组,联合方法组为101例,按PCT浓度监测联合我国目前儿童CAP管理指南的方法指导使用抗菌药物,当P CT＜0．25μg/L且临床可疑细菌感染及PC T＞0．25μg/L者均使用抗菌药物;当PC T小于0．25μg/L且临床无伴细菌感染者予停药。标准治疗组89例,单独按CAP指南标准使用抗菌药物。两组均至少使用抗菌药物3 d后再次评估。最终分析抗菌药物的使用情况及临床疗效。结果与标准治疗组比较,联合方法组抗菌药物处方使用率明显降低[（4．9＆#177;1．4）dvs．（6．8＆#177;2．8）d],并且其抗菌药物使用时间及抗菌药物不良反应发生率也更少（2．0％ vs．20．0％）,以上两组各指标比较差异均有统计学意义（ P＜0．05）。两组住院时间及呼吸道症状复发率差异均无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。结论 PCT联合标准方法能明显减少儿童CAP抗菌药物的使用而未影响临床疗效,有助于更加合理使用抗菌药物。     

呼吸内科150例患者抗生素合理使用情况分析

目的分析评价呼吸内科患者抗生素合理使用情况。方法选取某医院150例呼吸内科住院患者为研究对象,通过查看病历等方式,调查分析抗生素的使用情况。结果 150例呼吸内科患者全部采用抗生素治疗,抗生素使用率为100.00%。其中抗生素使用频度最高的是头孢类,其次是大环内酯类。头孢类抗生素中以头孢曲松、头孢哌酮和头孢他定使用频度最高,且头孢曲松和头孢哌酮的药物利用指数(DUI)均超过1,存在不合理使用现象;抗生素联合应用频率略高。结论呼吸内科疾病患者存在抗生素药物使用不完全合理现象,建议临床呼吸内科医生调整患者抗生素的使用,加强合理用药,促进患者健康。     

住院患者鲍曼不动杆菌感染调查与防控措施

目的了解医院住院患者鲍曼不动杆菌感染的临床分布及耐药性变迁,为制定防控措施提供依据。方法通过实验室信息系统(LIS)和查看病人,每日监控住院患者鲍曼不动杆菌检出情况,并进行分析。结果从感染患者送检标本中共检出鲍曼不动杆菌431株,占病原菌检出总数的5.35%。感染患者主要分布于重症监护病房,构成比达72.85%;其次为呼吸科(10.67%)和神经内科(3.94%)。检出的鲍曼不动杆菌对12种临床常用抗菌药物的耐药率达到70%以上,2011年后检出的鲍曼不动杆菌对丁胺卡那等抗菌药物的耐药率呈明显下降趋势。在检出的431株鲍曼不动杆菌中,有290株为多重耐药菌株。结论医院住院患者感染鲍曼不动杆菌比例较高,该菌普遍耐药,且呈现多重耐药现象。