Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Bloodstream infections (BSI) are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Inappropriate empirical antimicrobial therapy leads to poor outcomes.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment in patients hospitalized with bacteremia.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at the Soroka Medical Center in Israel. The intervention was implemented starting in July 2018. We compared 170 patients who received pharmacist intervention (August 2018 to June 2019) to 173 control patients (January 2017 to July 2018). The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate antibiotic choice and dosage.

Results: Pharmacist intervention significantly improved appropriate antibiotic dosing (97.6% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.011) and selection based on pathogen sensitivity (100% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.007). The most significant effect was observed in patients with intermediate renal function (CrCl 30–60 ml/min). Multivariate analysis confirmed pharmacist intervention as a strong predictor of appropriate treatment (odds ratio 5.00, 95% confidence interval 1.64–15.25, P = 0.005). The intervention group had longer hospital stays (median 15 vs. 9 days, P < 0.001) and lower 7-day relapse rates (2.4% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.010).

Conclusions: Clinical pharmacist interventions significantly improved the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment in patients with bacteremia, particularly in those with intermediate renal function. Despite longer hospital stays, the intervention group had lower early relapse rates than the control group. These findings support the integration of clinical pharmacists into antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Previous studies showed that rhythm and rate control strategies are associated with similar rates of mortality and serious morbidity. Beta blockers (BB) and calcium channel blockers (CCB) are commonly used and the selection between these two medications depends on personal preference.

Objectives: To compare real-time capability of BB and CCB for the treatment of rapid AF and to estimate their efficacy in reducing hospitalization duration.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 306 patients hospitalized at Soroka Hospital during a 5-year period with new onset AF who were treated by a rate control strategy.

Results: A significant difference between the two groups regarding the time (in hours) until reaching a target heart rate below 100 beats/min was observed. BB were found to decrease the heart rate after 5 hours (range 4–14) vs. 8 hours (range 4–18) for CCB (P = 0.009). Patients diagnosed with new-onset AF exhibited shorter duration of hospitalization after therapy with BB compared to CCB (median 72 vs. 96 hours, P = 0.012) in the subgroup of patients discharged with persistent AF. There was no significant difference between CCB and BB regarding the duration of hospitalization (P = 0.4) in the total patient population.

Conclusions: BB therapy is more potent for rapid reduction of the heart rate compared to CCB and demonstrated better efficiency in shortening the duration of hospitalization in a subgroup of patients. This finding should be reevaluated in subsequent research.