[Antimicrobial stewardship program during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos durante la pandemia de COVID-19.

In spite of the low frequency of COVID-19 associated bacterial coinfections, the rate of empiric antibiotic use varies between 70% and 90%. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on COVID-19 patients. The study design was an interrupted time series, assessing prevalence of antibiotic use, adequacy of treatment and antimicrobial consumption in adult patients hospitalized with COVID before the COVID-ASP implementation in June 2020, and on three subsequent periods (P2 in August 2020, P3 in October 2020 and P4 in June 2021). One hundred and one patients were included. Moderate and severe disease was more frequent in P2, P3, and P4 periods (p < 0.001). After the implementation we observed a significant reduction on ATM use (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), and macrolid combination therapy (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03), and an increase of adequate use (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). Antimicrobial consumption by period in days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient-day was 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.29 vs. 43.6 (p <0.001). We did not find any difference in intensive care unit transfer or mortality. COVID-ASP implementation was an effective strategy to reduce antimicrobial consumption and optimize antibiotic indications without affecting morbidity or mortality.

A pesar de la baja frecuencia de coinfecciones bacterianas asociadas al COVID-19, la tasa de uso de antibióticos (ATB) empíricos varía entre 70 y 90%. El objetivo primario del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un programa de optimización de antimicrobianos en pacientes con COVID-19 (PROA-COVID). Se realizó un estudio prospectivo de serie de tiempo interrumpida. Se evaluó la prevalencia, adecuación y consumo de ATB en adultos internados con COVID previo a la implementación del PROA-COVID (P1, junio 2020) y en tres períodos posteriores (P2 en agosto 2020, P3 en octubre 2020 y P4 en junio 2021). Se incluyeron 301 pacientes. Las formas clínicas moderadas-graves fueron más frecuentes en los P2, 3 y 4 (p < 0.001). La implementación del programa mostró una disminución significativa del uso de ATB (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), de la indicación de tratamiento combinado con macrólidos (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03) y aumento del uso adecuado (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). El consumo de ATB en DDT (días de tratamiento) totales/1000 días paciente fue: 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.3 vs. 43.6 (p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias significativas en el pase a unidades de cuidados críticos ni en la mortalidad. La implementación del PROA-COVID fue una estrategia efectiva para reducir el uso de antibióticos y optimizar sus indicaciones sin impacto en la morbimortalidad.

Programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos durante la pandemia de COVID-19 / Antimicrobial stewardship program during the COVID-19 pandemic

Resumen A pesar de la baja frecuencia de coinfecciones bacterianas asociadas al COVID-19, la tasa de uso de antibióticos (ATB) empíricos varía entre 70 y 90%. El objetivo primario del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un programa de optimización de antimicrobianos en pacientes con COVID-19 (PROA-COVID). Se realizó un estudio prospectivo de serie de tiempo interrumpida. Se evaluó la prevalencia, adecuación y consumo de ATB en adultos internados con COVID previo a la implementación del PROA-COVID (P1, junio 2020) y en tres períodos posteriores (P2 en agosto 2020, P3 en octubre 2020 y P4 en junio 2021). Se incluyeron 301 pacientes. Las formas clínicas moderadas-graves fueron más frecuentes en los P2, 3 y 4 (p < 0.001). La implementación del programa mostró una disminución significativa del uso de ATB (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), de la indicación de tratamiento combinado con macrólidos (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03) y aumento del uso adecuado (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). El consumo de ATB en DDT (días de tratamiento) totales/1000 días paciente fue: 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.3 vs. 43.6 (p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias significativas en el pase a unidades de cuidados críticos ni en la mortalidad. La implementación del PROA-COVID fue una estrategia efectiva para reducir el uso de antibióticos y optimizar sus indicaciones sin impacto en la morbimortalidad.

Abstract In spite of the low frequency of COVID-19 associated bacterial coinfections, the rate of empiric an tibiotic use varies between 70% and 90%. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on COVID-19 patients. The study design was an interrupted time series, assessing prevalence of antibiotic use, adequacy of treatment and antimicrobial consumption in adult patients hospitalized with COVID before the COVID-ASP implementation in June 2020, and on three subsequent periods (P2 in August 2020, P3 in October 2020 and P4 in June 2021). One hundred and one patients were included. Moderate and severe disease was more frequent in P2, P3, and P4 periods (p < 0.001). After the implementation we observed a significant reduction on ATM use (61% vs. 41% vs. 31.1% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001), and macrolid combination therapy (17.3% vs. 19.2% vs. 10.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.03), and an increase of adequate use (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 69.9% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.039). Antimicrobial consumption by period in days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient-day was 347.9 vs. 272.8 vs. 134.29 vs. 43.6 (p<0.001). We did not find any difference in intensive care unit transfer or mortality. COVID-ASP implementation was an effective strategy to reduce antimicrobial consump tion and optimize antibiotic indications without affecting morbidity or mortality.

[Multicenter study of COVID-19 incidence and determinants in Argentinian physicians]. / Estudio multicéntrico de incidencia y determinantes de COVID-19 en médicos de Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Information about COVID infection in physicians is limited. This knowledge would allow the implementation of actions to reduce its impact. The objective was determining the incidence of SARSCoV-2 infection in physicians from health institutions in Argentina, its characteristics, and associated factors. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective / retrospective cohort study with nested case-control study. Physicians active at the beginning of the pandemic were included, those on leave due to risk factors were excluded. The incidence of confirmed cases was estimated. We conducted bivariate analyses with various factors and used those significant in a logistic regression. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty three physicians with COVID-infection from 8 centers were included. The incidence of disease was 12.1% and that of global absenteeism related to COVID, 34.1%. Almost 70% of close contacts were work-related. In the multivariate analysis living in Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA) (OR 0.19, p = 0.01), working in high-risk areas (OR 0.22, p = 0.01) and individual transportation (OR 0, 34, p = 0.03) reduced the risk of COVID. The odds of infection increased 5.6 times (p = 0.02) for each close contact isolation. DISCUSSION: The number of close contact isolation increased considerably the risk of infection. Living in Buenos Aires City, individual transportation and working in high-risk areas reduced it. Given the high frequency of close contact in the workplace, we strongly recommend the reinforcement of prevention measures in rest areas and non-COVID-wards.

Introducción: La información sobre COVID en médicos es limitada. Su conocimiento permitiría implementar acciones para reducir su impacto. El objetivo general fue determinar la incidencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en médicos de instituciones de salud de Argentina, sus características y factores asociados. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio multicéntrico de cohorte prospectiva/retrospectiva con estudio de casos-controles anidado. Se incluyeron médicos activos al inicio de la pandemia no exceptuados por riesgo. Se estimó incidencia de casos confirmados. Se compararon factores asociados en casos y controles y se creó un modelo de regresión logística con las variables significativas del análisis bivariado. Resultados: Se incluyeron 343 médicos con COVID de 8 centros. La incidencia de la enfermedad fue de 12.1% y la de ausentismo global relacionado a COVID, de 34.1%. El 70% de los contactos estrechos fueron laborales. En el análisis multivariado de casos y controles, la residencia en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (OR 0.19, p = 0.01), el trabajo en áreas de alto riesgo (OR 0.22, p = 0.01) y vehículo individual (OR 0.34, p = 0.03) redujeron el riesgo de COVID. El odds de enfermar aumentó 4.6 veces (p = 0.02) por cada aislamiento por contacto estrecho. Discusión: El riesgo de enfermar aumentó considerablemente con cada aislamiento por contacto estrecho. La residencia en Ciudad Autónoma, el traslado en vehículo individual y el trabajo en áreas de alto riesgo lo redujeron. Dada la alta frecuencia de contactos estrechos en el ámbito laboral recomendamos reforzar las medidas de prevención en áreas de descanso y no COVID.

Estudio multicéntrico de incidencia y determinantes de COVID-19 en médicos de Argentina / Multicenter study of COVID-19 incidence and determinants in Argentinian physicians

Resumen Introducción: La información sobre COVID en médicos es limitada. Su conocimiento permitiría implementar acciones para reducir su impacto. El objetivo general fue determinar la incidencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en médicos de instituciones de salud de Argentina, sus características y factores aso ciados. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio multicéntrico de cohorte prospectiva/retrospectiva con estudio de casos-controles anidado. Se incluyeron médicos activos al inicio de la pandemia no exceptuados por riesgo. Se estimó incidencia de casos confirmados. Se compararon factores asociados en casos y controles y se creó un modelo de regresión logística con las variables significativas del análisis bivariado. Resultados: Se incluyeron 343 médicos con COVID de 8 centros. La incidencia de la enfermedad fue de 12.1% y la de ausentismo global relacionado a COVID, de 34.1%. El 70% de los contactos estrechos fueron laborales. En el análisis multivariado de casos y controles, la residencia en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (OR 0.19, p = 0.01), el trabajo en áreas de alto riesgo (OR 0.22, p = 0.01) y vehículo individual (OR 0.34, p = 0.03) redujeron el riesgo de COVID. El odds de enfermar aumentó 4.6 veces (p = 0.02) por cada aislamiento por contacto estrecho. Discusión: El riesgo de enfermar aumentó considerablemente con cada aislamiento por contacto estrecho. La residencia en Ciudad Autónoma, el traslado en vehículo individual y el trabajo en áreas de alto riesgo lo redujeron. Dada la alta frecuencia de contactos estrechos en el ámbito laboral recomendamos reforzar las medidas de prevención en áreas de descanso y no COVID.

Abstract Background: Information about COVID infection in physicians is limited. This knowledge would allow the implementation of actions to reduce its impact. The objective was determining the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in physicians from health institutions in Argentina, its characteristics, and associated factors. Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective / retrospective cohort study with nested case-control study. Physicians active at the beginning of the pandemic were included, those on leave due to risk factors were excluded. The incidence of confirmed cases was estimated. We conducted bivariate analyses with various factors and used those significant in a logistic regression. Results: Three hundred and forty three physicians with COVID-infection from 8 centers were included. The incidence of disease was 12.1% and that of global absenteeism related to COVID, 34.1%. Almost 70% of close contacts were work-related. In the multivariate analysis living in Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA) (OR 0.19, p = 0.01), working in high-risk areas (OR 0.22, p = 0.01) and individual transportation (OR 0, 34, p = 0.03) reduced the risk of COVID. The odds of infection increased 5.6 times (p = 0.02) for each close contact isolation. Discussion: The number of close contact isolation increased considerably the risk of infection. Living in Buenos Aires City, individual transpor tation and working in high-risk areas reduced it. Given the high frequency of close contact in the workplace, we strongly recommend the reinforcement of prevention measures in rest areas and non-COVID-wards.

Controversias durante la pandemia de COVID-19 / Controversies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Resumen La pandemia COVID-19 produjo un impacto en la salud pública y la economía mundial. El objetivo de este documento fue actualizar según la evidencia disponible, el manejo de algunos elementos básicos en los Programas de Control de Infecciones (PCI) y la atención diaria de los pacientes. Como resultado: 1. No se recomienda el uso rutinario de barbijo N95 para la atención de pacientes sospechosos o confirmados de COVID-19. Datos disponibles indican que el SARS-CoV-2 se ha propagado principalmente a través de la transmisión por gotas y contacto. En ciertas situaciones se describen contagios de persona a persona a través de la vía respiratoria aérea observadas en ambientes poco ventilados, y mientras el individuo realizaba acciones de mayor potencialidad de transmisión. 2. Se acepta el reúso limitado y métodos de decontaminación de máscaras/ barbijos N95 bajo protocolos seguros y eficaces en el contexto de recursos limitados. 3. Se puede levantar el aislamiento de pacientes confirmados de COVID-19 bajo una estrategia basada en la clínica, factores de riesgo individuales y tiempo de evolución de la enfermedad. 4. No se requiere PCR control en casos confirmados para determinar el alta epidemiológica. 5. La evidencia actual demuestra que existe la posibilidad de reinfección, aunque su diagnóstico es dificultoso. 6. La medición de anticuerpos tiene un rol específico en estudios de prevalencia, diagnóstico de síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico y cuadro compatible con PCR negativa después del 7° día.

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on public health and the global economy. The objective of this document was to update, according to the available evidence, the management of some basic elements in the Infection Control Programs (PCI) and the daily care of patients. As a result: 1. The routine use of the N95 masks is not recommended for the care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Available data indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has spread primarily like most other common respiratory viruses, through droplet and contact transmission. In certain situations, person-to-person transmission is described through the airway, observed in poorly ventilated environments, and while the individual carried out actions of greater potential transmission 2. The limited reuse and decontamination methods of N95 masks are accepted under safe and effective prot ocols in the context of limited resources. 3. The isolation of patients with COVID-19 can be lifted under a strategy based on the clinic, individual risk factors and time of evolution of the disease. 4. PCR control is not required in confirmed cases to determine epidemiological discharge. 5. Current evidence shows that there is a possibility of reinfection although its diagnosis is difficult. 6. The measurement of antibodies has a specific role in prevalence studies, diagnosis of multisystemic inflammatory syndrome and a picture compatible with negative PCR after the 7th. day.

[Controversies during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Controversias durante la pandemia de COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on public health and the global economy. The objective of this document was to update, according to the available evidence, the management of some basic elements in the Infection Control Programs (PCI) and the daily care of patients. As a result: 1. The routine use of the N95 masks is not recommended for the care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Available data indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has spread primarily like most other common respiratory viruses, through droplet and contact transmission. In certain situations, personto-person transmission is described through the airway, observed in poorly ventilated environments, and while the individual carried out actions of greater potential transmission 2. The limited reuse and decontamination methods of N95 masks are accepted under safe and effective prot ocols in the context of limited resources. 3. The isolation of patients with COVID-19 can be lifted under a strategy based on the clinic, individual risk factors and time of evolution of the disease. 4. PCR control is not required in confirmed cases to determine epidemiological discharge. 5. Current evidence shows that there is a possibility of reinfection although its diagnosis is difficult. 6. The measurement of antibodies has a specific role in prevalence studies, diagnosis of multisystemic inflammatory syndrome and a picture compatible with negative PCR after the 7th. day.

La pandemia COVID-19 produjo un impacto en la salud pública y la economía mundial. El objetivo de este documento fue actualizar según la evidencia disponible, el manejo de algunos elementos básicos en los Programas de Control de Infecciones (PCI) y la atención diaria de los pacientes. Como resultado: 1. No se recomienda el uso rutinario de barbijo N95 para la atención de pacientes sospechosos o confirmados de COVID-19. Datos disponibles indican que el SARS-CoV-2 se ha propagado principalmente a través de la transmisión por gotas y contacto. En ciertas situaciones se describen contagios de persona a persona a través de la vía respiratoria aérea observadas en ambientes poco ventilados, y mientras el individuo realizaba acciones de mayor potencialidad de transmisión. 2. Se acepta el reúso limitado y métodos de decontaminación de máscaras/barbijos N95 bajo protocolos seguros y eficaces en el contexto de recursos limitados. 3. Se puede levantar el aislamiento de pacientes confirmados de COVID-19 bajo una estrategia basada en la clínica, factores de riesgo individuales y tiempo de evolución de la enfermedad. 4. No se requiere PCR control en casos confirmados para determinar el alta epidemiológica. 5. La evidencia actual demuestra que existe la posibilidad de reinfección, aunque su diagnóstico es dificultoso. 6. La medición de anticuerpos tiene un rol específico en estudios de prevalencia, diagnóstico de síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico y cuadro compatible con PCR negativa después del 7° día.

[Multicenter study of adherence to guidelines on surgical prophylaxis and the determinants of non-adherence in ArgentinaEstudo multicêntrico sobre a adesão a diretrizes de profilaxia cirúrgica e seus determinantes na Argentina]. / Estudio multicéntrico de adherencia a guías de profilaxis quirúrgica y sus determinantes en Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the level of adherence to guidelines on surgical prophylaxis in health facilities in Argentina and the determinants of non-adherence. METHODS: Cross-sectional multicenter study in 35 centers in Argentina. The level of adherence to guidelines and the forms of non-adherence were determined and these were compared based on the characteristics of the indicated antibiotic, anesthesiologist, surgery, and facility, as well as patient age. An adjusted logistic regression model was used. RESULTS: A total of 1,083 surgical procedures were reviewed. Adherence to guidelines was 67%. The most frequent forms of non-adherence were: incorrect antibiotic (28.9%), unnecessary prophylaxis (25.5%), and prolonged prophylaxis (24.4%). Adherence to guidelines was higher in persons under 18 years of age (84.9% compared to 65.5%, p < 0.001). According to the type of health coverage (social welfare, private insurance, public coverage, or community coverage), adherence was 33.3%, 64.4%, 78.8%, and 83.3%, respectively; p < 0.001. According to population (maternal and child, pediatric, specific pathologies, and general pathologies), adherence was 97.9%, 97.2%, 89.4%, and 63.2%, respectively; p < 0.001. Adherence was highest in neurosurgery (91.1%), obstetrics (82.4%), and cardiovascular surgery (72.9%), and lowest in otorhinolaryngology (47.8%), ophthalmology (50%), and urology (55.9%) (p < 0.001). The adjusted analysis showed the highest adherence to guidelines in persons under 18 (odds ratio [OR]: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI 95]: 1.13-21.80); emergency surgery (OR: 2.18; CI 95: 1.11-4.26); and public, private, and community facilities (OR: 9.35; CI 95: 3.85-22.70). Adherence was also higher in facilities for maternal and child care and specific pathologies (OR: 10.52; CI 95, 1.30-85.12), cardiovascular surgery, neurosurgery, obstetrics (OR: 2.73; CI 95: 1.55-4.78), and facilities with programs to optimize the use of antimicrobial drugs (OR 1.95; CI 95, 1.10-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines was 67%. Incorrect, unnecessary, and prolonged use of antibiotics were the most frequent forms of non-adherence. Adherence was higher with younger patients, where programs exist to optimize the use of antimicrobial drugs, where there is private or public health coverage, with the pediatric population, for specific pathologies, in emergency surgery, and in certain specialties.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o nível de adesão às diretrizes (AD) de profilaxia cirúrgica em instituições de saúde da Argentina e os determinantes da não adesão (NA). MÉTODOS: Estudo multicêntrico transversal realizado em 35 centros na Argentina. Determinamos o nível de AD e as formas de NA, comparados segundo as características das seguintes variáveis: indicação antibiótica, anestesista, cirurgia, instituição e idade do paciente. Aplicamos um modelo de regressão logística ajustado. RESULTADOS: Revisamos um total de 1083 procedimentos cirúrgicos. A taxa de AD foi de 67%. As formas mais frequentes de NA foram: antibiótico incorreto (28,9%), profilaxia desnecessária (25,5%) e profilaxia prolongada (24,4%). A AD foi mais elevada em pacientes com menos de 18 anos (84,9% vs. 65,5%, p<0,001); também houve variações segundo o tipo de instituição (instituição de seguridade social, privada, pública ou comunitária, com adesão de 33,3%, 64,4%, 78,8% e 83,3%, respectivamente; p<0,001) e segundo a população (materno-infantil, pediátrica, com patologia específica ou geral, com adesão de 97,9%, 97,2%, 89,4% e 63,2%, respectivamente; p<0,001). A AD foi maior em neurocirurgia (91,1%), obstetrícia (82,4%) e cirurgia cardiovascular (72,9%) e menor em otorrinolaringologia (47,8%), oftalmologia (50%) e urologia (55,9%) (p<0,001). A análise ajustada mostrou uma AD mais elevada em pacientes com menos de 18 anos (odds ratio [OR]: 4,97, intervalo de confiança de 95% [IC95%]: 1,13-21,80), em cirurgias de emergência (OR: 2,18, IC95%: 1,11-4,26) e em instituições públicas, privadas ou comunitárias (OR: 9,35, IC95%: 3,85-22,70). A AD também foi superior em instituições para população materno-infantil ou para populações específicas (OR: 10,52; IC95%: 1,30-85,12), cirurgia cardiovascular, neurocirurgia, obstetrícia (OR: 2,73; IC95%: 1,55-4,78) e em instituições com programas para a otimização do uso de antimicrobianos (OR: 1,95; IC95%: 1,10-3,45). CONCLUSÕES: A AD foi de 67%; as formas mais frequentes de NA foram o uso incorreto, desnecessário e prolongado de antibióticos. A AD foi maior em pacientes mais jovens, em instituições com programas para a otimização do uso de antimicrobianos, em instituições privadas ou públicas e em populações pediátricas ou específicas, nos procedimentos cirúrgicos de emergência e em certas especialidades.

Estudio multicéntrico de adherencia a guías de profilaxis quirúrgica y sus determinantes en Argentina

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Evaluar el nivel de adherencia a las guías de profilaxis quirúrgica (AG) en instituciones de salud de Argentina y los determinantes de la falta de adherencia (NA). Métodos. Estudio multicéntrico de corte transversal en 35 centros de Argentina. Se determinaron el nivel de AG y las formas de NA y se comparó según características de la indicación antibiótica, anestesista, cirugía, institución y edad del paciente. Se ajustó un modelo de regresión logística. Resultados. Se revisaron 1 083 procedimientos quirúrgicos (PQ). La AG fue de 67%. Las formas más frecuentes de NA fueron: antibiótico incorrecto (28,9%), profilaxis innecesaria (25,5%) y profilaxis prolongada (24,4%). La AG fue mayor en menores de 18 años (84,9% frente a 65,5%, P < 0,001); según la dependencia (obra social, privada, pública o comunitaria) fue de 33,3%, 64,4%, 78,8% y 83,3%, respectivamente; P < 0,001) y según la población (maternoinfantil, pediátrica, con patología específica y general) fue de 97,9%, 97,2%, 89,4% y 63,2%, respectivamente; P < 0,001). La AG fue mayor en neurocirugía (91,1%), obstetricia (82,4%) y cirugía cardiovascular (CCV) (72,9%) y menor en otorrinolaringología (ORL) (47,8%), oftalmología (50%) y urología (55,9%) (P < 0,001). El análisis ajustado mostró mayor AG en menores de 18 años (odds ratio [OR]: 4,97; intervalo de confianza de 95% [IC95]: 1,13-21,80), cirugía de urgencia (OR: 2,18; IC95: 1,11-4,26) e institución pública, privada o de comunidad (OR: 9,35; IC95: 3,85-22,70). La AG también fue mayor en instituciones para población maternoinfantil o específica (OR: 10,52; IC95, 1,30-85,12), CCV, neurocirugía, obstetricia (OR: 2,73; IC95: 1,55-4,78) e instituciones con programas para la optimización del uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) (OR 1,95; IC95, 1,10-3,45). Conclusiones. LA AG fue de 67%; el uso incorrecto, innecesario y prolongado del antibiótico fueron las formas más frecuentes de NA. La AG fue mayor con menor edad, PROA, dependencia privada o pública y población pediátrica o específica, PQ de urgencia y ciertas especialidades.

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. Evaluate the level of adherence to guidelines on surgical prophylaxis in health facilities in Argentina and the determinants of non-adherence. Methods. Cross-sectional multicenter study in 35 centers in Argentina. The level of adherence to guidelines and the forms of non-adherence were determined and these were compared based on the characteristics of the indicated antibiotic, anesthesiologist, surgery, and facility, as well as patient age. An adjusted logistic regression model was used. Results. A total of 1,083 surgical procedures were reviewed. Adherence to guidelines was 67%. The most frequent forms of non-adherence were: incorrect antibiotic (28.9%), unnecessary prophylaxis (25.5%), and prolonged prophylaxis (24.4%). Adherence to guidelines was higher in persons under 18 years of age (84.9% compared to 65.5%, p < 0.001). According to the type of health coverage (social welfare, private insurance, public coverage, or community coverage), adherence was 33.3%, 64.4%, 78.8%, and 83.3%, respectively; p < 0.001. According to population (maternal and child, pediatric, specific pathologies, and general pathologies), adherence was 97.9%, 97.2%, 89.4%, and 63.2%, respectively; p < 0.001. Adherence was highest in neurosurgery (91.1%), obstetrics (82.4%), and cardiovascular surgery (72.9%), and lowest in otorhinolaryngology (47.8%), ophthalmology (50%), and urology (55.9%) (p < 0.001). The adjusted analysis showed the highest adherence to guidelines in persons under 18 (odds ratio [OR]: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI 95]: 1.13-21.80); emergency surgery (OR: 2.18; CI 95: 1.11-4.26); and public, private, and community facilities (OR: 9.35; CI 95: 3.85-22.70). Adherence was also higher in facilities for maternal and child care and specific pathologies (OR: 10.52; CI 95, 1.30-85.12), cardiovascular surgery, neurosurgery, obstetrics (OR: 2.73; CI 95: 1.55-4.78), and facilities with programs to optimize the use of antimicrobial drugs (OR 1.95; CI 95, 1.10-3.45). Conclusions. Adherence to guidelines was 67%. Incorrect, unnecessary, and prolonged use of antibiotics were the most frequent forms of non-adherence. Adherence was higher with younger patients, where programs exist to optimize the use of antimicrobial drugs, where there is private or public health coverage, with the pediatric population, for specific pathologies, in emergency surgery, and in certain specialties.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Avaliar o nível de adesão às diretrizes (AD) de profilaxia cirúrgica em instituições de saúde da Argentina e os determinantes da não adesão (NA). Métodos. Estudo multicêntrico transversal realizado em 35 centros na Argentina. Determinamos o nível de AD e as formas de NA, comparados segundo as características das seguintes variáveis: indicação antibiótica, anestesista, cirurgia, instituição e idade do paciente. Aplicamos um modelo de regressão logística ajustado. Resultados. Revisamos um total de 1083 procedimentos cirúrgicos. A taxa de AD foi de 67%. As formas mais frequentes de NA foram: antibiótico incorreto (28,9%), profilaxia desnecessária (25,5%) e profilaxia prolongada (24,4%). A AD foi mais elevada em pacientes com menos de 18 anos (84,9% vs. 65,5%, p<0,001); também houve variações segundo o tipo de instituição (instituição de seguridade social, privada, pública ou comunitária, com adesão de 33,3%, 64,4%, 78,8% e 83,3%, respectivamente; p<0,001) e segundo a população (materno-infantil, pediátrica, com patologia específica ou geral, com adesão de 97,9%, 97,2%, 89,4% e 63,2%, respectivamente; p<0,001). A AD foi maior em neurocirurgia (91,1%), obstetrícia (82,4%) e cirurgia cardiovascular (72,9%) e menor em otorrinolaringologia (47,8%), oftalmologia (50%) e urologia (55,9%) (p<0,001). A análise ajustada mostrou uma AD mais elevada em pacientes com menos de 18 anos (odds ratio [OR]: 4,97, intervalo de confiança de 95% [IC95%]: 1,13-21,80), em cirurgias de emergência (OR: 2,18, IC95%: 1,11-4,26) e em instituições públicas, privadas ou comunitárias (OR: 9,35, IC95%: 3,85-22,70). A AD também foi superior em instituições para população materno-infantil ou para populações específicas (OR: 10,52; IC95%: 1,30-85,12), cirurgia cardiovascular, neurocirurgia, obstetrícia (OR: 2,73; IC95%: 1,55-4,78) e em instituições com programas para a otimização do uso de antimicrobianos (OR: 1,95; IC95%: 1,10-3,45). Conclusões. A AD foi de 67%; as formas mais frequentes de NA foram o uso incorreto, desnecessário e prolongado de antibióticos. A AD foi maior em pacientes mais jovens, em instituições com programas para a otimização do uso de antimicrobianos, em instituições privadas ou públicas e em populações pediátricas ou específicas, nos procedimentos cirúrgicos de emergência e em certas especialidades.

Evaluación de la implementación de un Programa de Uso Optimizado de Antimicrobianos en la pandemia de COVID-19 / Evaluation of an antimicrobial stewardship program implementation during the global outbreak of coronavirus desease (COVID-19)

Introducción: No obstante la baja frecuencia de infecciones bacterianas asociadas al COVID-19, la prevalencia del uso de antibióticos empíricos es de 70 a 90%. El objetivo primario del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un programa de optimización de antimicrobianos dirigido a pacientes con COVID-19 (PROA-COVID).Material y métodos: Estudio antes y después, retrospectivo, descriptivo y analítico. Se evaluó prevalencia y adecuación del uso de antibióticos antes y después de implementación del PROA-COVID en pacientes internados. Se estimó consumo mensual de antibióticos en DDD/100 pacientes-día y costos por uso inadecuado.Resultados: Se incluyeron 153 pacientes, 75 antes y 78 después de la intervención, sin diferencias significativas en las características poblacionales entre ambos períodos. Las formas clínicas moderadas-severas fueron más frecuentes postintervención (p=0,03). La implementación mostró una disminución significativa en prevalencia de uso (64% vs 41%, p=0,004), con aumento de uso adecuado (37,5% vs. 46,8%, p=NS). La indicación innecesaria fue mayor antes del PROA (80% vs 50%, p=0,03) y la duración del tratamiento postintervención (13,3% vs. 43,7%%, p=0,02). La implementación redujo el consumo de betalactámicos + IBL y azitromicina.No se observaron diferencias significativas en mortalidad, frecuencia de pase a UCC ni uso de antibioticoterapia combinada con macrólidos entre ambos períodos ajustando por severidad. Conclusiones: La implementación del PROA-COVID fue una estrategia efectiva para reducir el uso de antibióticos y optimizar sus indicaciones, lo que destaca la importancia de su aplicación rápida y oportuna.

ntroduction: Despite the low frequency of Covid-19-associated bacterial infections, empirical antibacterial treatment is as high as 70 to 90%. The primary goal of this study was to determine the impact of the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program to target Covid-19 patients (ASP-COVID).Materials and methods: Retrospective, descriptive, and analytic pre and post intervention study. Prevalence and adequacy of antibacterial treatment in hospitalized patients prior and after ASP-COVID implementation were assessed. Monthly antibiotic consumption in DDD/100 patients-day and costs related with inadequate usage were estimated. Results: One hundred and fifty three patients, 75 prior and 78 after ASP-COVID implementation, were included. No significant difference in population characteristics between both periods was observed. Moderate and severe clinical presentations were more frequent after the intervention (p=0,03). ASP implementation showed a significant reduction of antimicrobial treatment (64% vs 41%, p=0,004), with an increment of adequate usage (37,5% vs 46,8%, p=NS). Unnecessary usage was higher prior to ASP (80% vs 50%, p =0,03) and length of treatment post intervention (13,3% vs 43,7%%, p=0,02). Program implementation decreased beta lactam antibiotics + IBL and azithromycin consumption. After adjusting for severity, no significant difference was found in mortality, incidence of ICU admission nor combined antibacterial therapy with macrolides between both periods.Conclusions: ASP-COVID implementation was an effective strategy in reducing antimicrobial usage and in optimizing antibacterial treatment indications, highlighting the importance of its rapid and timely application.

[Intra-abdominal infections. Update and recommendations]. / Infecciones intraabdominales. Puesta al día y recomendaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Infectología.

Intra-abdominal infections represent a group of intra and retroperitoneal processes, ranging from localized infections to complicated ones, sepsis and septic shock, associated with a significant mortality rate. They are the third most commonly identified cause of sepsis and the second cause of death in the intensive care unit. Although antimicrobial therapy must be started as soon as possible, especially in critically ill patients, the source control procedure is highly relevant. On account of the importance of this subject, members of the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases (SADI) and intensive care specialists joined to develop recommendations on diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of intra-abdominal infections. The literature published within the last 10 years was reviewed and analyzed, in addition of expert opinions and local data. This statement provides a basic tool for diagnosis based on clinical and microbiological criteria, orientation on empirical antimicrobial therapy schemes according to source, acquisition place (community or healthcare associated infections), infection severity, treatment duration, importance of source control, and preventive measures aimed to reduce surgical site infection risk. Likewise, it provides a simple algorithm for diagnosis and treatment for use in clinical practice. The work reveals the concern about the management of intra-abdominal infections, establishing local guidelines to optimize diagnosis, treatment and prevention, with the aim of reducing morbidity, mortality, length of stay, costs and antimicrobial resistance.

Infecciones intraabdominales: Puesta al día y recomendaciones de la sociedad Argentina de infectología / Intra-abdominal infections. Update and recommendations

Las infecciones intraabdominales constituyen un grupo de procesos intra y retroperitoneales, desde cuadros localizados hasta infecciones complicadas, sepsis o shock séptico, con elevada mortalidad. Representan la tercera causa de sepsis y la segunda causa de muerte en unidades de terapia intensiva. El tratamiento antimicrobiano debe iniciarse lo antes posible, especialmente en pacientes en estado crítico, pero también es fundamental el procedimiento de control del foco. Dada la importancia del tema, representantes de la Sociedad Argentina de Infectología junto con especialistas en Terapia Intensiva elaboraron estas recomendaciones sobre su diagnóstico, tratamiento y prevención. A tal fin, revisaron y analizaron la bibliografía publicada sobre el tema en los últimos 10 años, además de la opinión de expertos y datos locales. El documento ofrece herramientas básicas de diagnóstico basadas en criterios clínicos y microbiológicos, orientación sobre esquemas antibióticos empíricos y dirigidos según foco de origen, lugar de adquisición (comunidad o asociadas al cuidado de la salud) y gravedad de la infección, duración del tratamiento, importancia del control del foco y medidas preventivas para reducir el riesgo de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Asimismo, se presenta un algoritmo sencillo de diagnóstico y tratamiento para uso en la actividad asistencial. El trabajo pone en evidencia la preocupación por el tratamiento de las infecciones intraabdominales, estableciendo pautas locales para mejorar su diagnóstico, tratamiento y prevención, con el objeto de disminuir morbimortalidad, días de internación, costos y resistencia antimicrobiana.

Intra-abdominal infections represent a group of intra and retroperitoneal processes, ranging from localized infections to complicated ones, sepsis and septic shock, associated with a significant mortality rate. They are the third most commonly identified cause of sepsis and the second cause of death in the intensive care unit. Although antimicrobial therapy must be started as soon as possible, especially in critically ill patients, the source control procedure is highly relevant. On account of the importance of this subject, members of the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases (SADI) and intensive care specialists joined to develop recommendations on diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of intra-abdominal infections. The literature published within the last 10 years was reviewed and analyzed, in addition of expert opinions and local data. This statement provides a basic tool for diagnosis based on clinical and microbiological criteria, orientation on empirical antimicrobial therapy schemes according to source, acquisition place (community or healthcare associated infections), infection severity, treatment duration, importance of source control, and preventive measures aimed to reduce surgical site infection risk. Likewise, it provides a simple algorithm for diagnosis and treatment for use in clinical practice. The work reveals the concern about the management of intra-abdominal infections, establishing local guidelines to optimize diagnosis, treatment and prevention, with the aim of reducing morbidity, mortality, length of stay, costs and antimicrobial resistance.