Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:41:18.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vancomycin Use in a University Medical Center: Comparison With Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Martin E. Evans  and
Kenneth J. Kortas
Martin E. Evans*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, School of Medicine, and the Department of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, University of Kentucky, School of Pharmacy, Lexington, Kentucky
Kenneth J. Kortas
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, School of Medicine, and the Department of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, University of Kentucky, School of Pharmacy, Lexington, Kentucky
*
Infection Control, HG608, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Lexington, KY 40536-0084
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: To compare actual vancomycin use in a hospital with the guidelines proposed by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Design: One-month prospective survey of all patients given vancomycin. Data were collected from patient and laboratory records and discussions with prescribing physicians.

Setting: Four hundred sixty-one–bed tertiary-care university hospital.

Results: Only 35% of the 101 vancomycin orders written during the audit were consistent with HICPAC guidelines. Twenty-eight patients were begun on vancomycin for the treatment of documented infections due to β-lactam–resistant gram-positive bacteria or because preliminary culture results suggested such bacteria were present. Seven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, two ampicillin-resistant enterococci, and 10 coagulase-negative staphylococci were recovered. Vancomycin use was judged inappropriate in 66 patients. The drug was used empirically without obtaining appropriate cultures (44 patients), as surgical prophylaxis (6 patients), for primary treatment of antibiotic-associated colitis (3 patients), for convenience in a hemodialysis patient (1 patient), or for other reasons not recommended by HICPAC (12 patients).

Conclusions: Vancomycin use in our teaching center often was inconsistent with HICPAC guidelines. Information from the audit will be useful for designing strategies to improve vancomycin use.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 17 , Issue 6 , June 1996 , pp. 356 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Murray, BE. Editorial response: what can we do about vancomycin-resistant enterococci? Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1134–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Edmond, MB, Ober, JF, Weinbaum, DL, et al. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia: risk factors for infection. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1126–1133.Google Scholar
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addressing emerging infectious disease threats: a prevention strategy for the United States (executive summary). MMWR 1994;43(No. RR-5):1–18.Google Scholar
4. Handwerger, S, Raucher, B, Altarac, D, et al. Nosocomial outbreak due to Enterococcus faecium highly resistant to vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin. Clin Infect Dis 1993;16:750–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance: a report from the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee prepared by the subcommittee on prevention and control of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:105–113.Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae—Kentucky and Tennessee, 1993. MMWR 1994;43:23–25.Google Scholar
7. Smith, SM, Mangia, A, Eng, RHK, Ruggeri, P, Cytryn, A, Tecson-Tumang, F. Clindamycin for colonization and infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Infection 1988;16:95–97.Google Scholar
8. Markowitz, N, Quinn, EL, Saravolatz, LD. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared to vancomycin for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:390–398.Google Scholar
9. Jemni, L, Hmouda, H, Letaief, A. Efficacy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a report from Tunisia. Clin Infect Dis 1994;19:202–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Brumfitt, W, Hamilton-Miller, J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . N Engl J Med 1989;320:1188–1196.Google Scholar
11. Daum, TE, Schaberg, DR, Terpenning, MS, Scottile, WS, Kauffman, CA. Increasing resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1862–1863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Irwin, DB, Dupuis, LL, Prober, CG, Tesoro, A. The acceptability, stability, and relative bioavailability of an extemporaneous metronidazole suspension. Can J Hosp Pharmacy 1987;40:42–46.Google Scholar
13. Muder, RA, Brennen, C, Wagener, MM, et al. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcal colonization and infection in a long-term care facility. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:107–112.Google Scholar