Search

Background: In recent years, several rapid molecular diagnostic tests (RMDTs) for infectious diseases diagnostics, such as bloodstream infections (BSIs), have become available for clinical use. The extent to which RMDTs have been adopted and how the results of these tests have been incorporated into clinical care are currently unknown. Methods: We surveyed members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network to characterize utilization of RMDT in hospitals and antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) involvement in result communication and interpretation. The survey was administered using Qualtrics software, and data were analyzed using Stata and Excel software. Results: Overall, 57 responses were received (response rate, 59%), and 72% were from academic hospitals; 50 hospitals (88%) used at least 1 RMDT for BSI (Fig. 1). The factors most commonly reported to have been important in the decision to adopt RMDT were improvements in antimicrobial usage (82%), clinical outcomes (74%), and laboratory efficiency (52%). Among 7 hospitals that did not use RMDT for BSI, the most common reason was cost of new technology. In 50 hospitals with RMDT for BSI, 54% provided written guidelines for optimization or de-escalation of antimicrobials based upon RMDT results. In 40 hospitals (80%), microbiology laboratories directly notified a healthcare worker of the RMDT results: 70% provided results to a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant; 48% to the ASP team; and 33% to a nurse. Furthermore, 11 hospitals (22%) had neither guidelines nor ASP intervention. In addition, 24 hospitals (48%) reported performing postimplementation evaluation of RMDT impact. Reported findings included reduction in time to antibiotic de-escalation (75%), reduction in length of stay (25%), improved laboratory efficiency (20%), and reduction in mortality and overall costs (12%). Among the 47 hospitals with both RMDT and ASP, 79% reported that the ASP team routinely reviewed blood culture RMDT results, and 53.2% used clinical decision support software to do so. Finally, 53 hospitals (93%) used 1 or more RMDT for non–bloodstream infections (Fig. 1). Fewer than half of hospitals provided written guidelines to assist clinicians in interpreting these RMDT results. Conclusions: RMDTs have been widely adopted by participating hospitals and are associated with positive self-reported clinical, logistic, and financial outcomes. However, nearly 1 in 4 hospitals did not have guidelines or ASP interventions to assist clinicians with optimization of antimicrobial prescribing based on RMDT results for BSI. Also, most hospitals did not have guidelines for RMDT results for non-BSI. These findings suggest that opportunities exist to further enhance the potential benefits of RMDT.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Background: Early de-escalation of antibiotics in sepsis may be safe and effective. In our study, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to a large municipal hospital who were treated for severe sepsis or septic shock to compare outcomes in patients who experienced early de-escalation (DEG) with outcomes of those who did not (NDG).Methods: The observational study was conducted at Bellevue Hospital Center (an 850-bed municipal hospital affiliated with New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY). Patients admitted from January 1 to December 31, 2015, who were treated for severe sepsis or septic shock during any time of their hospital stay were reviewed for the study. De-escalation was defined as narrowing or discontinuation of 1 or more antimicrobial therapies < 3 days after sepsis onset. Results: Overall, 277 patients were included (DEG, 90 patients, 32%; NDG, 187 patients, 68%). The groups were similar in terms of sex, comorbidities, length of stay, and severity of illness: septic shock (47% DEG vs 49% NDG; P = .693) and ICU stay (27% DEG vs 32% NDG; P = .406). DEG patients were slightly older than NDG patients: (DEG age, 63+16 years vs NDE age, 58+16 years; P = .028). There was no difference in hospital mortality (8% DEG vs 12% NDE; P = .257). Nearly half of the patients in both groups (46% DEG and 47% NDG) had no causative microorganisms identified using conventional microbiology culture. The common sources of primary infection were respiratory, urinary tract, and gastrointestinal infections, and these were not different between groups. Also, 69% of DEG patients and 79% of NDG patients received antibiotics for >7 days (P = .002). Empiric intravenous vancomycin was initiated in 83% in DEG patients and 74% in NDG patients at sepsis diagnosis. Although organisms covered by intravenous vancomycin were isolated from only 17% of patients in DEG and 23% in NDG, vancomycin was continued for >5 days in 34% of DEG patients and 50.3% of NDG patients (P < .001). 60% of patients in DEG and 61% in NDG were seen by infectious diseases specialists (ID). Patients with infectious diseases consultations had significantly more comorbidities, were more frequently in the ICU, had higher MDRO isolation and longer hospital stays, but they were still de-escalated without a difference in mortality. Conclusions: Microbiology data did not contribute to early de-escalation of antibiotics in this study. This finding may be related to the high percentage of negative culture and unavailability of rapid molecular diagnostic tests. Shorter duration of antibiotics (including vancomycin) was not associated with worse outcome in these severely ill patients.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None