Abstract Objectives This study assessed the real-world clinical impact of rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) compared with conventional susceptibility testing (AST) in critically ill patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNB BSIs), focusing on early optimization of therapy and clinical outcomes in a high multidrug-resistant (MDR) setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study including adult patients with GNB BSIs who were stratified according to the susceptibility testing strategy used (RAST or conventional AST). The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included administration of early active antimicrobial therapy, clinical failure and length of both intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Results A total of 133 patients were included (RAST: 37; AST: 96). Thirty-day mortality was observed in 4/37 patients (10.8%) in the RAST group and in 30/96 (31.3%) in the AST group (P = 0.015). Early active therapy was administered to 32/37 (86.5%) RAST patients versus 44/96 (45.8%) in the AST group (P 0.001). Clinical failure occurred in 0/37 RAST patients versus 20/96 (20.8%) AST patients (P = 0.003). Mean ICU stay was 30.3 ± 22.9 days (RAST) versus 36.9 ± 25.6 days (AST), P = 0.17. In Cox regression analysis, RAST-guided management (HR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.04–0.62) and early active therapy (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.19–0.94) were independently associated with survival. Conclusions RAST may represent a valuable tool to optimize antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with GNB BSIs, particularly considering the increasing prevalence of MDR pathogens.
Salvatore et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: