↓ Skip to main content

Optimization of time to initial vancomycin target trough improves clinical outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Optimization of time to initial vancomycin target trough improves clinical outcomes
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1146-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony P Cardile, Christopher Tan, Michael B Lustik, Amy N Stratton, Cristian S Madar, Jun Elegino, Günther Hsue

Abstract

Outcomes data for the efficacy of interventions designed to decrease the time to initial target vancomycin troughs are sparse. A vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) program was initiated to reduce the time to initial target troughs and to examine the impact on clinical outcomes. Single-center, pre- and post-intervention observational study in a 250 bed teaching facility. Adult inpatients treated with physician-guided, vancomycin therapy (historical control, CTRL) were compared to high trough, pharmacist-guided vancomycin therapy (TDM). Nephrotoxicity analyses were conducted to the ensure safety of the TDM. Clinical outcome analysis was limited to patients with normal renal function and culture-confirmed gram positive infections and a pre-defined MRSA subset. 340 patients met initial inclusion criteria for the nephrotoxicity analysis (TDM, n = 173; CTRL, n = 167). Acute kidney injury occurrence was similar between the CTRL (n = 20) and TDM (n = 23) groups (p = 0.7). Further exclusions yielded 145 patients with gram positive infections for clinical outcomes evaluation (TDM, n = 66; CTRL, n = 75). The time to initial target trough was shorter in the TDM group (3 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Patients in the TDM group discharged from the hospital more rapidly, 7 vs. 14 days (Hazards Ratio (HR), 1.41; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.08-1.83; p = 0.01), reached clinical stability faster, 4 vs. 8 days (HR, 1.51; 95% CI 1.08-2.11; p = 0.02), and had shorter courses of vancomycin, 4 vs. 7 days (HR, 1.5; 95% CI 1.15-1.95; p = 0.003). In the MRSA infection subset (TDM, n = 36; CTRL, n = 35), patients in the TDM group discharged from the hospital more rapidly, 7 vs. 16 days (HR, 1.89; 95% CI 1.08-3.3; p = 0.03), reached clinical stability faster, 4 vs. 6 days (HR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.27-5.7; p = 0.01), and had shorter courses of vancomycin, 5 vs. 8 days (HR, 2.52; 95% CI 1.38-4.6; p = 0.003). Attaining initial target troughs in <5 days versus ≥5 days was associated with improved clinical outcomes. All cause in-hospital mortality, and vancomycin treatment failure occurred at comparable rates between groups. Interventions designed to decrease the time to reach initial target vancomycin troughs can improve clinical outcomes in gram positive infections, and in particular MRSA infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 30%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,372,431
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#386
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,497
of 263,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#23
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.