Introduction To enhance the probability of pharmacodynamic target attainment, piperacillin–tazobactam can be administered as either a continuous or extended-infusion dosage regimen for the treatment of gram-negative infections. Four hour extended-infusions of piperacillin–tazobactam 3.375 g administered intravenously (IV) every 8 h have been widely studied as an alternative to conventional, intermittent dosage regimens with largely favorable outcomes. Objective To assess the clinical and economic impact of a novel 3-h extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam dosing strategy for the treatment of gram-negative infections. Setting 433-bed community hospital in Lexington, KY. Methods Retrospective cohort study before and after the implementation of an alternative dosing protocol using a 3-h infusion of piperacillin–tazobactam 3.375 g IV every 6 h. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, ICU length of stay, 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions, total cost per admission, complications, and a composite of in-hospital mortality and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Results Readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge was significantly reduced in the extended-infusion arm (1.2 vs. 13.7 %, P = 0.002). A composite endpoint of death or readmission was lower among patients who received the extended-infusion dosing regimen [ORadj 0.20; 95 % CI (0.07–0.57)]. However this was likely driven by reductions in readmission. Conclusion An alternative regimen of extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam resulted in a significant reduction in 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. These results indicate that 3-h infusions of piperacillin–tazobactam 3.375 g IV every 6 h may represent a clinically effective alternative to other commonly used regimens and results in fewer readmissions within 30 days.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Dantas RC, Ferreira ML, Gontijo-Filho PP, Ribas RM. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia: independent risk factors for mortality and impact of resistance on outcome. J Med Microbiol. 2014;63:1679–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Vardakas KZ, Rafailidis PI, Konstantelias AA, Falagas ME. Predictors of mortality in patients with infections due to multi-drug resistant gram negative bacteria: the study, the patient, the bug or the drug? J Infect. 2013;66:401–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Scaglione F, Paraboni L. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of antibacterials in the intensive care unit: setting appropriate dosing regimens. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32:294–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Grant EM, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP, Nightingale C, Quintiliani R. Clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of a continuous-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam program in a large community teaching hospital. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22:471–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, et al. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:236–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lau WK, Mercer D, Itani KM, et al. Randomized, open-label, comparative study of piperacillin–tazobactam administered by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for treatment of hospitalized patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:3556–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Lodise TP Jr, Lomaestro B, Drusano GL. piperacillin–tazobactam for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: clinical implications of an extended-infusion dosing strategy. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:357–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Patel GW, Patel N, Lat A, et al. Outcomes of extended infusion piperacillin/tazobactam for documented gram-negative infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;64:236–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Yost RJ, Cappelletty DM. The retrospective cohort of extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam (RECEIPT) study: a multicenter study. Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31:767–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lee GC, Liou H, Yee R, Quan CF, Neldner K. Outcomes of extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam: a retrospective analysis of critically ill patients. Clin Ther. 2012;34:2297–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Cutro SR, Holzman R, Dubrovskaya Y, et al. Extended-infusion versus standard-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam for sepsis syndromes at a tertiary medical center. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:4470–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Felton TW, Hope WW, Lomaestro BM, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam in hospitalized patients with nosocomial infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:4087–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in severe sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192:1298–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar