You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Paediatric Emergency Medicine
Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: how young is too young?
  1. Kate Alison Hodgson1,2,
  2. Ruth Lim2,
  3. Julie Huynh1,
  4. Ben Nind1,
  5. Naomi Katz1,
  6. Robin Marlow3,
  7. Conor C Hensey4,
  8. Barry Scanlan1,
  9. Laila F Ibrahim1,
  10. Penelope A Bryant5
  1. 1 Hospital in the Home Department, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Newborn Research Centre, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK
  4. 4 Department of General Paediatrics, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  5. 5 General Medicine, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kate Alison Hodgson, Hospital in the Home Department, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia; Kate.Hodgson{at}thewomens.org.au

Abstract

Objective To report the use, and assess the efficacy and outcomes of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in neonates (≤28 days of age), compared with older infants (1–12 months of age).

Design A prospective 8-year observational study from September 2012 to September 2020.

Setting The Hospital-in-the-Home (HITH) programme of the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne.

Patients Neonatal patients (≤28 days of age) were compared with older infants (1–12 months of age) receiving OPAT.

Interventions Data were collected including demographics, diagnosis, type of venous access and antibiotic choice.

Main outcome measures Success of OPAT, antibiotic appropriateness, complications and readmission rate.

Results There were 76 episodes for which neonates were admitted to HITH for OPAT, and 405 episodes for older infants. Meningitis was the most common diagnosis in both groups (59% and 35%, respectively); the most frequently prescribed antibiotic was ceftriaxone for both groups (61% and 49%). A positive bacterial culture was less frequent in neonates (38% vs 53%, p=0.02). Vascular access complication rate was 19% in neonates compared with 13% in older infants (p=0.2) with no central line-associated bloodstream infection in either group. Rates of appropriate antibiotic prescribing were similarly high between groups (93% vs 90%, p=0.3). The OPAT course was successfully completed in 74 of 74 (100%) neonates and 380 of 396 (96%) older infants (p=0.09). The unplanned readmission rate was low: 4 of 76 (5%) neonates and 27 of 405 (7%) older infants.

Conclusions OPAT is a safe and effective way of providing antibiotics to selected clinically stable neonatal patients. While appropriate antibiotic use was common, improvements can still be made.

  • Neonatology
  • Infectious Disease Medicine

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request. Requests should be directed to Penelope Bryant (Penelope.Bryant@rch.org.au).

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2022-324143

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request. Requests should be directed to Penelope Bryant (Penelope.Bryant@rch.org.au).

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @naekatz

    • Contributors KAH designed the study, collected data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. PAB contributed to study design and data collection, and edited the manuscript. RL, JH, BN, NK, RM, CCH, BS and LFI all collected data and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. KAH acts as the guarantor for the manuscript.

    • Funding PAB is supported in part by an Australian Medical Research Futures Fund fellowship, and LFI and PAB are supported in part by Murdoch Children's Research Institute Clinician Scientist fellowships.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.