Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cefepime is a first-line agent for empiric sepsis therapy; however, cefepime use may be associated with increased mortality for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) in an MIC-dependent manner. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of empiric cefepime versus meropenem for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with cefepime MICs ≤ 2 mg/L.
METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients admitted from October 2010 to August 2020 who received cefepime or meropenem empirically for sepsis with a blood culture growing ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary endpoints included 14-day mortality, recurrent BSI, readmission and recurrent infection within 90 days, time to clinical resolution of infection, time to clinical stability, and clinical stability at 48 hours.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients met inclusion criteria: 36 received meropenem and 18 received cefepime. The median (IQR) treatment durations of cefepime and meropenem were 3 (2-6) days and 7 (5-10) days, respectively. Thirty-day and 14-day mortality were similar between cefepime and meropenem (11.1% vs. 2.8%; P = 0.255 and 5.6% vs. 2.8%; P = 1.00, respectively). Cefepime was associated with longer time to clinical stability compared with meropenem (median 38.48 hours vs. 21.26; P = 0.016).
CONCLUSION: Mortality was similar between groups, although most patients who received cefepime empirically were ultimately transitioned to a carbapenem to complete the full treatment course. Empiric cefepime was associated with a delay in achieving clinical stability when compared with meropenem to treat BSI caused by ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales, even when cefepime-susceptible.