热带地区某三甲医院抗菌药物管理措施及成效

Effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship in a three-A hospital in tropical area

  • 摘要:
    目的 评估抗菌药物管理(AMS)对住院患者抗菌药物指标的影响,为抗菌药物合理使用和管理提供参考。
    方法 调取解放军总医院海南医院2023年1月-2023年12月(AMS前)和2024年1月-12月(AMS后)住院患者抗菌药物相关数据,包括抗菌药物使用率、抗菌药物使用强度(AUD)、微生物送检率、医院感染发生率和多重耐药菌(MDRO)检出率等11项指标,分析实施AMS前后住院患者抗菌药物指标变化,评估AMS对抗菌药物管理的成效。
    结果 与AMS前相比,AMS后各项抗菌药物指标向好向优。住院患者抗菌药物费用占比(18.80% vs. 13.71%)、住院患者次均抗菌药物费用(1 600.83±291.40元vs.1 035.94±243.34元)、住院患者抗菌药物使用率(39.23% vs. 34.91%)、Ⅰ类切口抗菌药物预防使用率(30.14% vs. 23.26%)、抗菌药物联合用药率(27.20% vs. 21.10%)、AUD(52.99±5.17 DDDs vs. 41.46±6.31 DDDs)、医院感染发生率(1.26% vs. 0.71%)、CRE检出率(4.64% vs. 2.31%)和MRSA检出率(23.58% vs. 14.45%)均显著降低(P<0.05);Ⅰ类切口预防使用抗菌药物品种适宜率(64.20% vs. 67.85%)、抗菌药物使用前微生物送检率(35.31% vs. 42.28%)和限制级抗菌药物使用前微生物送检率(48.62% vs. 55.28%)均显著提升(P<0.05)。
    结论 该医院通过实施AMS,显著改善住院患者抗菌药物指标,促进抗菌药物合理使用,降低抗菌药物成本,有效控制院内感染和耐药菌传播。

     

    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) on antimicrobial use indicators in hospitalized patients and to provide references for the rational use and management of antimicrobials.
    METHODS Data on antimicrobial-related indicators for hospitalized patients were retrieved from Hainan Hospital of the Chinese PLA General Hospital for the periods from Jan. 2023 to Dec. 2023 (pre-AMS) and from Jan. 2024 to Dec. 2024 (post-AMS). This included 11 key indicators: antimicrobial use rate, antimicrobial use density (AUD), microbial submission rate, hospital-acquired infection rate, multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) detection rate and others. Changes in these antimicrobial use indicators among hospitalized patients before and after AMS implementation were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of AMS.
    RESULTS Compared with the pre-AMS period, all antimicrobial indicators showed favorable improvements in the post-AMS period. The proportion of antimicrobial costs among inpatients (18.80% vs. 13.71%), average antimicrobial costs per inpatient admission (RMB 1 600.83±291.40 vs. RMB 1 035.94±243.34), use rate of antimicrobials among inpatients (39.23% vs. 34.91%), prophylactic use rate of antimicrobials for type Ⅰ incisions (30.14% vs. 23.26%), combination therapy rate of antimicrobials (27.20% vs. 21.10%), AUD (52.99±5.17 DDDs vs. 41.46±6.31 DDDs), incidence of hospital-associated infections (1.26% vs. 0.71%), detection rate of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (4.64% vs. 2.31%) and detection rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (23.58% vs. 14.45%) all significantly decreased (P < 0.05). The appropriateness rate of antimicrobial prophylaxis for type Ⅰ incisions (64.20% vs. 67.85%), microbial submission rate before antimicrobial use (35.31% vs. 42.28%) and microbial submission rate before the use of restricted-level antimicrobials (48.62% vs. 55.28%) all significantly increased (P < 0.05).
    CONCLUSION Through the implementation of AMS at this hospital, antimicrobial use indicators in hospitalized patients are significantly improved, promoting the rational use of antimicrobials, reducing antimicrobial costs and effectively controlling the occurrence of hospital-associated infections and the spread of resistant bacteria.

     

/

返回文章
返回