1576. Re-Evaluation of cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam to Decrease Use of Carbapenems in ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales BloodStream Infections (REDUCE-BSI)

Abstract

BackgroundThe ideal therapy for treatment of bloodstream infections (BSI) due to ESBL-producing organisms is widely debated. Although prior studies have demonstrated efficacy of non-carbapenems (CBPNs) for ESBL infections, results from the MERINO study group found increased mortality associated with piperacillin/tazobactam (PT) when compared with meropenem for treatment of ESBL BSI. The goal of this study was to investigate patient outcomes associated with the use of CBPN-sparing therapies (PT and cefepime (CEF)) for ESBL BSI. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality between non-CBPN (PT and CEF) and CBPN groups. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, microbiologic cure, infection recurrence, and development of resistance.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study of patients admitted to the hospital from May 2016 - May 2019 with a positive blood culture for an ESBL-producing organism. Patients receiving meropenem, ertapenem, PT, or CEF were included. Patients were excluded if < 18 years old, receiving antibiotics for < 24 hours, treated for a polymicrobial BSI, or receiving concomitant antibiotic therapy for another gram-negative (non-ESBL) infection.ResultsOne hundred and fourteen patients were analyzed; 74 (65%) patients received CBPN therapy compared with 40 (35%) patients that received a non-CBPN (CEF N=30, PT N=10). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 6% (N=7). Eight percent of patients (N=6) in the CBPN arm died compared to 3% (N=1) of patients in the non-CBPN arm, P = 0.42. No difference in mortality was detected between groups when evaluating subgroups with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (N=25), requiring ICU admission (N=50), non-genitourinary source (N=50), or by causative organism (N=76 E. coli; N=38 Klebsiella spp.). There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes.ConclusionCEF and PT are reasonable options for the treatment of ESBL BSI and did not result in increased mortality or decreased clinical efficacy when compared to CBPNs in this cohort.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures