Next Article in Journal
White-Toothed Shrews (Genus Crocidura): Potential Reservoirs for Zoonotic Leptospira spp. and Arthropod-Borne Pathogens?
Next Article in Special Issue
Special Issue: Recent Research on Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream Infections
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Trait Genome-Wide Association Studies of Sorghum bicolor Regarding Resistance to Anthracnose, Downy Mildew, Grain Mold and Head Smut
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antimicrobial Resistance and Management of Bloodstream Infections

by
Vasilios Petrakis
1,*,
Maria Panopoulou
2,
Petros Rafailidis
1,
Nikolaos Lemonakis
2,
Georgios Lazaridis
2,
Irene Terzi
1,
Dimitrios Papazoglou
1 and
Periklis Panagopoulos
1
1
Department of Infectious Diseases, 2nd University Department of Internal Medicine, University General Hospital Alexandroupolis, Democritus University Thrace, 68132 Alexandroupolis, Greece
2
University Lab of Microbiology, University General Hospital Alexandroupolis, Democritus University Thrace, 68132 Alexandroupolis, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(6), 780; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12060780
Submission received: 27 April 2023 / Revised: 22 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 30 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Research on Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream Infections)

Abstract

:
Introduction: The pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems led to limited roles of infectious diseases services, increased rates of irrational use of antimicrobials, and incidence of infections by multidrug-resistant microorganisms. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the incidence of antimicrobial resistance and the management of bloodstream infections before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at the University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis (Greece). Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study conducted from January 2018 to December 2022. Data were collected from the University Microbiology Laboratory per semester regarding the isolated strains of Gram-positive and -negative bacteria in blood cultures and respiratory samples in hospitalized patients in medical and surgical wards and in the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, bloodstream infections with requested infectious disease consultations were reported (n = 400), determining whether these were carried out via telephone contact or at the patient’s bedside. Demographic data, comorbidities, focus of infection, antimicrobial regimen, duration of treatment, length of hospitalization, and clinical outcome were analyzed. Results: A total of 4569 strains of Gram-positive and -negative bacteria were isolated. An increasing trend was reported compared to the pre-pandemic period in the incidence of resistant Gram-negative bacteria, particularly in ICUs. Prior antimicrobial use and the rate of hospital-acquired infections were increased significantly during the pandemic. In the pre-pandemic period 2018–2019, a total of 246 infectious disease consultations were carried out, while during the period 2020–2022, the number was 154, with the percentage of telephone consultations 15% and 76%, respectively. Detection of the source of infection and timely administration of appropriate antimicrobial agents were more frequently recorded before the pandemic, and 28-day mortality was significantly reduced in cases with bedside consultations. Conclusion: The empowering of infectious disease surveillance programs and committees, rational use of antimicrobials agents, and bedside infectious disease consultations are vital in order to reduce the impact of infections caused by multidrug-resistant strains.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was spread rapidly and overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide [1]. Simultaneously, the rise in multidrug-resistant (MDR) infections continues to threaten public heath leading to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and economic loss [1]. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is estimated to lead to 700,000 deaths globally each year [2]. AMR can be defined as an increasing resistance to antibiotics that undermines the ability to treat common and serious infectious diseases [2]. The estimated number of deaths due to infections with multiple drug-resistant pathogens by the year 2050 is expected to reach 10 million/year in the case of not applying a strict action plan to combat AMR [2]. The WHO declared AMR as one of the top 10 global health threats in 2015 and, although often more silent than the COVID-19 pandemic, it can have similar devastating consequences [3]. A European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) study in 2015 on the health burden of antimicrobial resistance measured in numbers of cases, attributable deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) concluded that 33,110 deaths and 874,541 DALYs were caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria which were mainly healthcare-associated (75%) [4]. Published data from the ECDC in November 2022 underlined that more than 35,000 people die from antimicrobial-resistant infections in the EU/EEA each year, and between 2012 and 2021 the consumption of ‘broad-spectrum’ antibiotics in hospitals was increased by 15% and the proportion of ‘reserve’ antibiotics more than doubled [5].
The increase in antimicrobial resistance is a potential consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recent reports have described an increase in multidrug-resistant bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic [6,7]. The cause is multifactorial, but a major reason is the high rate of antimicrobial agent utilization in COVID-19 patients despite the relatively low rates of co- or secondary infections [6]. A retrospective study found that the incidence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales colonization in ICU patients increased from 6.7% in 2019 to 50% in March–April 2020 [7]. Because of the COVID-19 emergency in healthcare systems, planned activities were deprioritized and already implemented preventive measures were reversed [8]. The pandemic has put tremendous strain on healthcare systems, diverting resources, personnel, and attention away from AMR diagnosis and management while AMR studies were hampered and surveillance programs were de-emphasized or stopped [9].
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance by estimating the nonsusceptibility rates of isolates in blood cultures and respiratory samples and on the management of bloodstream infections in University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis (Greece) during the period 2018–2022. Surveillance programs and reports of AMR before and after the COVID-19 pandemic are vital in order to better understand the impact of pandemic and decide appropriate interventions.

2. Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study conducted in the University Lab of Microbiology and Department of Infectious Diseases of the University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis (Greece). Data from lab records and routine care patient charts during the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of Human Rights.
During the 5-year period, routine susceptibility data of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial isolates from blood and respiratory specimens of hospitalized patients in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units (ICU) were reported emphasizing to the most clinically important species (Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecium, and Staphylococcus aureus). From each patient, only the first isolate of a given species recovered was included, regardless of susceptibility profile or specimen type. The classification of the isolates as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant was based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines [10,11]. The EUCAST breakpoints, valid since January 2019, which established the susceptibility cut-off points based on antibiotic dose and mode of administration, were adopted by our lab in January 2023 after the end of study period. The antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by an automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing system for the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination. During the period 2018–2019, the University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis contained 650 beds in wards and 15 in the ICU. The management of the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increased number of beds: 700 in the wards and 21 in the ICU. The hospital occupancy remained similar between the pre-pandemic period and during the COVID-19 pandemic (72% vs. 74%), while scheduled surgeries were postponed and non-COVID-19 medical hospitalizations were limited during the first year of the pandemic.
The number of non-susceptible isolates was divided by the number of isolates tested in order to determine the non-susceptibility rate for every assessment period, defined as a semester. The isolates were analyzed based on microorganism, ward type (ward, ICU), specimen type, and antibiotic. The administration of antibiotics prior to pathogen isolation was reported. The percentage of isolates attributed to healthcare-associated infections was estimated for each year. The clinical outcome was evaluated by documenting the risk of death and increased hospital stay due to the isolated pathogens. Multivariable analysis was performed for the attributable risk of death and prolonged hospital stay and the difference between patients with infections by multidrug-resistant bacteria and patients infected by susceptible bacteria was estimated.
Additionally, the cases of bloodstream infections with reported consultation by an infectious diseases specialist during the period 2018–2022 were documented. The results of blood cultures from wards and ICU were routinely reviewed by the infectious diseases service in order to identify resistant isolates and design the appropriate management. Infectious disease consultations were conducted after the request of the primary clinical team. The patients were divided into two groups based on period of time, group A for the pre-pandemic period (2018–2019) and group B for the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–2022). Type of consultation (bedside or via telephone), demographic characteristics of patients (age, gender), comorbidities using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), duration of symptoms before consultation, type of infection (community or hospital acquired), foci of infection, clinical outcome (mortality within 28 and 90 days after first pathogen isolation), and features of antibiotic therapy (duration, combination of antibiotics) were analyzed. A community-acquired infection was defined as an infection contracted outside of a healthcare facility or an infection present at the time of admission [11]. The term healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) was used for infections occurred while receiving healthcare or developed in a hospital or other healthcare facility firstly appeared 48 h or more after hospital admission or within 30 days after having received healthcare [12]. HCAIs include central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonia [12].
Quality indicators for the present study included: (a) identification of focus of infection, (b) performing repeat blood cultures at 48 to 96 h, (c) treatment of uncomplicated infections with 14 days of iv antibiotics, (d) treatment of complicated infections with a minimum of 28 days of iv antibiotics, and (e) bacteremia recorded in the hospital discharge summary. The outcome measures were assessed by the following factors: (a) defervescence within 7 days, (b) duration of hospital stay, (c) death at 28 and 90 days after first positive blood culture, and (d) recurrent disease. Death was attributed to bloodstream infection if the blood culture was positive at the time of death and the associated symptoms and signs were still present.
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The normality of quantitative variables was tested with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Normally distributed quantitative variables are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), while non-normally distributed quantitative variables are expressed as the median value and range. Qualitative variables were expressed as absolute and relative (%) frequencies. The Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney test to compare continuous variables. Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazard model. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age, sex, hospital-acquired infection, and CCI, was used to compare the 28- and 90-day mortality between the two groups. Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test, and chi-square test were used to determine differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups of patients. All tests were two-tailed and statistical significance was considered for p values < 0.05.

3. Results

During the period 2018–2022 (pre-pandemic period group A, 2018–2019, and pandemic period group B, 2020–2022), a total number of 4569 bacteria were isolated in blood and respiratory samples from patients hospitalized in wards (group A, n = 1285 and group B, n = 2068) and ICUs (group A, n = 393 and group B, n = 823). Number of isolates by semester is shown for ICU in Figure 1 and for wards in Figure 2. After the initiation of the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant increase is reported in numbers of isolated bacteria and eventually for Gram-negative bacilli and Enterococcus isolates.
In Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from hospitalized patients in ICUs, the non-susceptibility to carbapenems remained high during the whole study period (Figure 3). The percentage of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from blood and respiratory samples in ICUs resistant to meropenem was 92.6% in the first semester of 2018 and 97.9% in the second semester of 2022 (p < 0.001). The non-susceptibility to meropenem in wards increased from 82.3% in the first semester of 2018 to 91.6% in the second semester of 2022 (p < 0.001). A significant difference was found in the non-susceptibility trend for amikacin, ranging from 81.6% in the first semester of 2018 to 93.4% in the second semester of 2022 in ICUs and from 63.2% to 74.5% respectively in wards (p < 0.001). A decreasing trend was reported in the slope of the non-susceptibility for colistin in ICU samples during the pre-pandemic period (from 43.6% to 41.4%, p = 0.05) followed by an increasing trend during the pandemic period (from 42.5% to 59.6%, p < 0.001).
In Klebsiella pneumonia isolates from blood and respiratory samples in ICUs, a decreasing trend in non-susceptibility to meropenem and colistin prior to COVID-19 pandemic initiation (Figure 4). However, during pandemic period the rate of non-susceptibility to colistin was increased from 58.3% in the second semester of 2019 to 71.8% in the second semester of 2022 and to meropenem from 79.8% to 92.4%, respectively (p < 0.001) (Figure 4). Similar findings were documented in the wards with 56.4% of Klebsiella pneumonia isolates resistant to colistin and 72.6% to meropenem during the second semester of 2022 (Figure 4).
In Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from patients hospitalized in wards and ICUs, statistically significant changes were found in the rates of non-susceptibility trends before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 5). The non-susceptibility of isolates in ICUs to meropenem was increased from 43.5% in the first semester of 2018 to 53.6% in the second semester of 2022 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the non-susceptibility to amikacin was reported 41.3% in the first semester of 2018 and was increased to 53.6% in the pandemic period (p < 0.001). In wards the non-susceptibility to levofloxacin remained high during 2018–2022, ranging from 42.5% in the first semester of 2018 to 49.6% in the second semester of 2022 (p < 0.001). Despite the decreasing trend of non-susceptibility to meropenem and amikacin in wards in the first semester of 2020, during the pandemic period the rate of non-susceptibility to meropenem increased to 42.5% and to amikacin to 38.6% (p < 0.001).
A decreasing rate of non-susceptibility to vancomycin was reported in the second semester of 2019 for Enterococcus feacium isolates in wards. However, during the pandemic period, the non-susceptibility rate to vancomycin increased from 33.5% to 44.6% in the second semester of 2022 (p < 0.001) (Figure 6).
In Staphylococcus aureus isolates in wards during the pre-pandemic period, a decreasing trend of non-susceptibility to methicillin was found, from 33.2% in the first semester of 2018 to 30.5% in the first semester of 2019 (p = 0.052). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate was increased significantly to 38.6% (p < 0.001) (Figure 7).
The estimated percentage of isolates attributed to hospital acquired infections was increased from 42% in 2018 to 60% in 2021 and 64% in 2022 (p = 0.05). Antibiotic consumption before the isolation of bacteria in blood and respiratory samples was reported in high rates during 2018–2022, ranging from 53% in 2018 to 78% in 2022 (p = 0.005). The results of multivariable logistic regression analysis are shown in Table 1. The increased numbers of isolates in wards and ICU and high rates of non-susceptibility to antibiotics led to increased risk of death and prolonged hospital stay, particularly for Gram-negative bacilli.
A total of 400 adults with bloodstream infections and reported infectious disease consultations were eligible for inclusion in the study. During the pre-pandemic period (group A), 246 consultations were documented, 85% carried out at bedside. During the COVID-19 pandemic (group B), the number of consultations was lower (n = 154) and mainly conducted via telephone (76%). Demographic data (age, gender) of patients between the two groups were similar (Table 2). The first consultation was reported within 24 h from symptom onset in 64.2% of patients in group A while 47.4% in group B (Table 2). The proportion of patients with Charlson comorbidity index Score ≥ 3 was approximately 40% for both groups (Table 3). The proportion of patients with prosthetic material was higher in group B compared to group A (30.5% vs. 22.8%, p < 0.02).
Overall, approximately 60% of bloodstream infections were hospital acquired and 30% were community acquired (Table 4). The frequency of hospital-acquired infections and multidrug-resistant isolated bacteria were higher in group B (63.6% vs. 61%, p < 0.001 and 37% vs. 33.7%, p < 0.001, respectively). The most common foci of infection were skin and soft tissue infections, central venous catheters associated infections, respiratory infections and osteomyelitis (Table 4). The proportion of patients with an unknown focus was higher in group B (11.7% vs. 6.5%, p < 0.04). Certain foci of infection such as thrombophlebitis, implanted vascular device, prosthetic joint infections, urinary tract infections, and intra-abdominal infections were more frequently identified in group A compared to group B (Table 4). The frequency of a complicated infection was similar between the two groups (54.5% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.001).
The percentage of patients for whom bloodstream infection was complicated with septic shock was 3.3% in group A and 4.5% in group B (p = 0.118) (Table 5). Need for hospitalization in intensive care units (4.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.245) and length of hospital stay (29 days vs. 30 days, p = 0.457) were not significantly different between the two groups (Table 5). The duration of antibiotic treatment was longer in group A compared to group B (15 days vs. 11 days, p = 0.04). Higher frequency of treatment with combination of antibiotics was reported in group A (10.6% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001). The mortality rate within 28 days and 90 days was significantly higher in group B, with mainly telephone infectious disease consultations (Table 5). The proportion of cases in which new blood cultures after treatment initiation were collected and repeated consultations were carried out was higher in group A with bedside infectious disease consultations. There was no significant difference in recurrent bacteremia between the two groups.

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic induced a new burden on health systems worldwide and aggravated existing health challenges in many aspects of global health [13]. According to the annual Tripartite AMR Country Self-Assessment Survey 2020–21, 151 (94%) of 161 countries ascribed the pandemic as having impacted their national response to control the problem of antimicrobial resistance [14]. An acute increase in the burden of antimicrobial resistance was a feared outcome of the pandemic, but this speculation had not been comprehensively measured [13,14]. The present study showed that the rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria during the COVID-19 pandemic were increased significantly. An increasing trend was reported in numbers of isolated Gram-negative bacteria, especially for Acinetobacter baumannii non-susceptible to colistin and Pseudomonas aeruginosa non-susceptible to carbapenems and quinolones, leading to increased risk of death and longer hospital stay. The management of bloodstream infections was altered during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the results of our study, while infectious disease consultations were mainly conducted via telephone and not bedside. Telephone infectious disease consultations were associated with higher rates of mortality and lower probability for appropriate antimicrobial scheme and repeated clinical evaluation.
A special report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with country-level estimates of the effect of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance in the USA highlights a devastating undoing of progress in efforts to control antimicrobial resistance [15]. Although deaths from antimicrobial resistance were reduced by 18% from 2012 to 2017, including a 30% reduction in US hospitals, during 2020 a 15% increase in drug-resistant nosocomial infection rates was reported compared with the previous year [15]. Pathogen–drug combinations, classified as critical by WHO based on their risk to human health, showed alarming increases in rates of infection since 2019, especially in rates of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infections up 35%, and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter increasing by 78% [15]. Similar findings were documented in the results of the Greek Electronic System for the Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance (WHONET-Greece) which analyzed routine susceptibility data of 17,837 Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial isolates from blood and respiratory specimens of hospitalized patients in nine COVID-19 tertiary hospitals in two periods, January 2018–March 2020 and April 2020–March 2021 [1]. Increases were observed in the number of bloodstream and respiratory isolates from ICU patients in the last 6 months of the study period (October 2020–March 2021) mainly due to A. baumannii isolates in both blood and respiratory specimens and E. faecium blood isolates compared to the previous 6 months [1]. Significant differences were found in the slope of non-susceptibility trends of Acinetobacter baumannii blood and respiratory isolates to amikacin, tigecycline, and colistin and of Pseudomonas aeruginosa respiratory isolates to imipenem, meropenem, and levofloxacin [1]. However, decreasing nonsusceptibility trends in respiratory P. aeruginosa isolates were reported in the results of WHONET [1]. In our study the nonsusceptibility rates of P. aeruginosa isolates were significantly increased.
Few studies try to approach the causes of the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. The antibiotic consumption was irrational during the pandemic, while the rates of microbiologically confirmed bacterial coinfection were low [16,17,18,19,20]. In a meta-analysis including 24 studies and focusing on bacterial co-infections in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, co-infection was reported in 3.5% (95%CI: 0.4–6.7%) and secondary infection in 14.3% (95%CI: 9.6–18.9%) of patients with COVID-19 [21]. The reported bacterial infection was 6.9%, ranging from 5.9% in hospitalized patients to 8.1% in critically ill patients [21]. Many microorganisms have been reported as co-pathogens, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. maltophilia, A. baumannii, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Candida spp., Aspergillus spp., and viruses such as influenza, rhinovirus/enterovirus, parainfluenza virus, metapneumovirus, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [22,23,24,25,26]. The majority of multidrug-resistant microorganisms was developed in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, resulting in prolonged hospitalization and increased mortality rates [22].
In our study a high frequency of A. baumannii blood and respiratory isolates was observed with high levels of non-susceptibility to carbapenem and colistin throughout the study period. A. baumannii is one of the ESKAPE organisms (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, A. baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) and remains a therapeutic challenge with constantly increasing resistance [27]. Multidrug-resistant A. baumannii isolates have been identified in COVID-19 patients in both blood and respiratory isolates, mainly from ICUs, and with high rates of resistance in almost all widely used antibiotics, such as carbapenems, colistin and tigecycline [28,29,30,31]. Increasing trend was also reported in non-susceptible strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae during the COVID-19 pandemic period. In Greece, high rates of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae isolates due to carbapenemase-producing strains have been documented since 2002 [32]. A literature review of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 the prevalence of coinfection ranged from 0.35% to 53% [33].
Studies have shown that over 70% of patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics, with the majority constituting broad-spectrum agents such as fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins [21]. A study including 138 hospitalized patients showed that moxifloxacin, ceftriaxone, and azithromycin were prescribed in 89 (64.5%), 34 (24.6%), and 25 (18.1%) patients, respectively [18]. In a large-scale study with 1099 patients, 58% received intravenous antibiotics [34]. In a smaller Brazilian cohort of 72 hospitalized patients, 84.7% had received intravenous antibiotic therapy [35]. Among antibiotics, β-lactams were the main antibiotic category administered during the pandemic period [6,36]. Azithromycin, the macrolide most used alone or in combination with β-lactams, vancomycin, carbapenems, tigecycline, ceftriaxone, and linezolid, which are all classified as critically important antimicrobials (CIA) by WHO, are being widely prescribed during this pandemic [37].
Our study findings support that the use of routine bedside consultation in the pre-pandemic period for the management of bloodstream infections is superior to telephone consultation, which was mainly applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients in group A with bedside consultations were more likely to have an identified focus of infection, a better clinical outcome, and receive longer courses of antimicrobial therapy often with combinations of antibiotics. Longer treatment courses in group A were probably due to higher rates of inpatient follow-up estimation by the infectious disease specialist resulting in improved compliance to recommendations, higher frequency for repeated blood cultures, and appropriate evaluation of clinical and lab biomarkers. An observational cohort study of 571 adults with Staphulococcus aureus bacteraemia at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom between July 2006 and December 2012 showed that bedside consultation was associated with lower mortality at 30 days compared to telephone consultation (12% vs. 22%, p < 0.07) [38]. Another study in Helsinki University Central Hospital in Finland including 342 adults with at least 1 positive blood culture for S. aureus were retrospectively analyzed [39]; 72% of patients received bedside consultations, 18%received telephone consultations, and 10% received no consultation [39]. Patients with bedside consultation had lower mortality than patients with telephone consultation at 7 days (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02–0.49; p = 0.001; 1% vs. 8%), at 28 days (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11–0.65; p = 0.002; 5% vs. 16%), and at 90 days (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13–0.51; p < 0.0001; 9% vs. 29%) [39]. The above findings suggest that bedside consultations are superior to telephone consultations and should become the standard of care for the management of bloodstream infections.
One of the limitations of the study is its retrospective nature. Further studies in larger patient series with simultaneous analyze of data from other hospitals are needed in order to better determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance. The study was not designed as a controlled study and thus the contribution of uncontrolled variables such as patient population, length of hospital stay, and infection duration to the increase in the number of resistant isolates was not widely analyzed. Another limitation of the study is the low numbers of isolates, particularly in ICUs. However, the documented high rates of resistant isolates in our study are similar to published data during the COVID-19 pandemic and underline that antimicrobial resistance is a global health challenge.

5. Conclusions

Our study provides significant results for the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance, which could be valuable for possible effective interventions. The high prevalence of multidrug-resistant pathogens, mainly due to carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, is a major public health problem. The pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems was enormous, limiting the surveillance programs of infectious diseases. Antimicrobial resistance is an emerging silent parallel pandemic. The present study showed an increased frequency of isolated multidrug-resistant bacteria in blood and respiratory samples during the COVID-19 period, with high non-susceptibility rates to antibiotics. The high rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria increased significantly the risk of death and prolonged hospital stay due to complications. The percentage of hospital-acquired infections and the consumption of antibiotics were also increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, amplifying the dimensions of antimicrobial resistance. The management of bloodstream infections was also affected, while infectious disease consultations were conducted mainly via telephone and not at bedside. However, telephone consultations were associated with poorer clinical estimation and outcomes with higher mortality rates. Our study, similar to published data in the literature, concludes that they cannot replace bedside clinical estimation. Empowering of infectious disease surveillance programs and committees and bedside infectious disease consultations are vital in order to reduce the irrational use of antibiotics and the impact of infections by multidrug-resistant microorganisms.

Author Contributions

V.P. and M.P. conceived the idea; V.P., G.L. and N.L. performed the collection of medical records; V.P. and P.P. wrote the manuscript; V.P. performed the statistical analysis; V.P., P.P., I.T., P.R. and D.P. were responsible for consulting of the patients. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no extra funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

PP has been an advisory board member of GS, MSD, and JANSSEN; received honoraria as a speaker for GS, JANSSEN, and MSD; and holds 6 patents.

References

  1. Polemis, M.; Mandilara, G.; Pappa, O.; Argyropoulou, A.; Perivolioti, E.; Koudoumnakis, N.; Pournaras, S.; Vasilakopoulou, A.; Vourli, S.; Katsifa, H. COVID-19 and Antimicrobial Resistance: Data from the Greek Electronic System for the Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance-WHONET-Greece (January 2018–March 2021). Life 2021, 11, 996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. O’Neill, J. Review on Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations; Wellcome Trust: London, UK, 2016; p. 20. Available online: https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/160518_Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2021).
  3. WHO. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241509763 (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  4. Cassini, A.; Högberg, L.D.; Plachouras, D.; Quattrocchi, A.; Hoxha, A.; Simonsen, G.S.; Colomb-Cotinat, M.; Kretzschmar, M.E.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Cecchini, M. Burden of AMR Collaborative Group. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: A population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Assessing the Health Burden of Infections with Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in the EU/EEA, 2016–2020; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022.
  6. Lai, C.C.; Chen, S.Y.; Ko, W.C.; Hsueh, P.R. Increased antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2021, 57, 106324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tiri, B.; Sensi, E.; Marsiliani, V.; Cantarini, M.; Priante, G.; Vernelli, C.; Martella, L.A.; Constantini, M.; Mariottini, A.; Andreani, P.; et al. Antimicrobial stewardship program, COVID-19, and infection control: Spread of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization in ICU COVID-19 patients. What did not work? J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Knight, G.M.; Glover, R.E.; McQuaid, C.F.; Olaru, I.D.; Gallandat, K.; Leclerc, Q.J.; Fuller, N.M.; Willcocks, S.J.; Hasan, R.; van Kleef, E.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance and COVID-19: Intersections and implications. eLife 2021, 10, e64139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Rossolini, G.M.; Schultsz, C.; Tacconelli, E.; Murthy, S.; Ohmagari, N.; Holmes, A.; Bachmann, T.; Goossens, H.; Canton, R. Key considerations on the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial resistance research and surveillance. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2021, 115, 1122–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. CLS Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Available online: https://clsi.org/standards/products/microbiology/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  11. EUCAST. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  12. Haque, M.; Sartelli, M.; McKimm, J.; Abu Bakar, M. Health care-associated infections—An overview. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 2321–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Patel, J.; Sridhar, D. The pandemic legacy of antimicrobial resistance in the USA. Lancet Microb. 2022, 3, e726–e727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Organisation for Animal Health. WHO Global Database for the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Country Self-assessment Survey (TrACSS). Available online: https://amrcountryprogress.org/#/response-overview (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  15. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19: US Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance, Special Report 2022; US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022.
  16. Liew, Y.; Lee, W.H.L.; Tan, L.; Kwa, A.L.H.; Thien, S.Y.; Cherng, B.P.Z.; Chung, S.J. Antimicrobial stewardship programme: A vital resource for hospitals during the global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 56, 106145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Molla, M.M.A.; Yeasmin, M.; Islam, M.K.; Sharif, M.M.; Amin, M.R.; Nafisa, T.; Ghosh, A.K.; Parveen, M.; Arif, M.M.H.; Alam, J.A.J.; et al. Antibiotic prescribing patterns at COVID-19 dedicated wards in Bangladesh: Findings from a single center study. Infect. Prev. Pract. 2021, 3, 100134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, D.; Hu, B.; Hu, C.; Zhu, F.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, B.; Xiang, H.; Cheng, Z.; Xiong, Y.; et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2020, 323, 1061–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Castaldi, S.; Luconi, E.; Marano, G.; Auxilia, F.; Maraschini, A.; Bono, P.; Ungaro, R.; Bandera, A.; Boracchi, P.; Biganzoli, E. Hospital acquired infections in COVID-19 patients in sub intensive care unit. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, e2020017. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. Hughes, S.; Troise, O.; Donaldson, H.; Mughal, N.; Moore, L.S.P. Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary-care setting. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1395–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Langford, B.J.; So, M.; Raybardhan, S.; Leung, V.; Westwood, D.; MacFadden, D.R.; Soucy, J.R.; Daneman, N. Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: A living rapid review and meta-analysis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1622–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sharifipour, E.; Shams, S.; Esmkhani, M.; Khodadadi, J.; Fotouhi-Ardakani, R.; Koohpaei, A.; Doosti, Z.; EJ Golzari, S. Evaluation of bacterial co-infections of the respiratory tract in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lai, C.C.; Wang, C.Y.; Hsueh, P.R. Co-infections among patients with COVID-19: The need for combination therapy with non-anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents? J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2020, 53, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lai, C.C.; Yu, W.L. COVID-19 associated with pulmonary aspergillosis: A literature review. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2021, 54, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vilbrun, S.C.; Mathurin, L.; Pape, J.W.; Fitzgerald, D.; Walsh, K.F. Case report: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and COVID-19 coinfection in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 1986–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yousaf, Z.; Khan, A.A.; Chaudhary, H.A.; Mushtaq, K.; Parengal, J.; Aboukamar, M.; Khan, M.U.; Mohamed, M.F.H. Cavitary pulmonary tuberculosis with COVID-19 coinfection. IDCases 2020, 22, e00973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tacconelli, E.; Carrara, E.; Savoldi, A.; Harbarth, S.; Mendelson, M.; Monnet, D.L.; Pulcini, C.; Kahlmeter, G.; Kluytmans, J.; Carmeli, Y.; et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: The WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kyriakidis, I.; Vasileiou, E.; Pana, Z.D.; Tragiannidis, A. Acinetobacter baumannii antibiotic resistance mechanisms. Pathogens 2021, 10, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lima, W.G.; Brito, J.C.M.; da Cruz Nizer, W.S. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in patients with COVID-19: Two problems, one solution? Med. Hypotheses 2020, 144, 110139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yock-Corrales, A.; Lenzi, J.; Ulloa-Gutiérrez, R.; Gómez-Vargas, J.; Yassef, A.-M.O.; Rios Aida, J.A.; del Aguila, O.; Arteaga-Menchaca, E.; Campos, F.; Uribe, F.; et al. Antibiotic prescriptions in children with COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome: A multinational experience in 990 cases from Latin America. Acta Paediatr. 2021, 110, 1902–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Contou, D.; Claudinon, A.; Pajot, O.; Micaëlo, M.; Flandre, P.L.; Dubert, M.; Cally, R.; Logre, E.; Fraissé, M.; Mentec, H.; et al. Bacterial and viral co-infections in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to a French ICU. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Polemis, M.; Tryfinopoulou, K.; Giakkoupi, P.; Vatopoulos, A.; WHONET-Greece Study Group. Eight-year trends in the relative isolation frequency and antimicrobial susceptibility among bloodstream isolates from Greek hospitals: Data from the Greek electronic system for the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance—WHONET Greece, 2010 to 2017. Eurosurveillance 2020, 25, 1900516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska, W.; Lange, S.; Zorena, K.; Dąbrowski, S.; Ozga, D.; Tomaszek, L. Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in ICU COVID-19 patients—A scoping review. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Guan, W.J.; Ni, Z.Y.; Hu, Y.; Liang, W.H.; Ou, C.Q.; He, J.X.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.; Lei, C.-L.; Hui, D.S.C. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1708–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Teich, V.D.; Klajner, S.; Santiago de Almeida, F.A.; Batista Dantas, A.C.; Laselva, C.R.; Torritesi, M.G.; Canero, T.R.; Berwanger, O.; Rizzo, L.V.; Reis, E.P. Epidemiologic and clinical features of patients with COVID-19 in Brazil. Einstein 2020, 18, eAO6022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gonzalez-Zorn, B. Antibiotic use in the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 646–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barrasa, H.; Rello, J.; Tejada, S.; Martin, A.; Balziskueta, G.; Vinuesa, C.; Fernandez-Miret, B.; Villagra, A.; Vallejo, A.; San Sebastian, A.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 in Spanish intensive care units: Early experience with 15-day survival in Vitoria. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2020, 39, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saunderson, R.B.; Gouliouris, T.; Nickerson, E.K.; Cartwright, E.J.; Kidney, A.; Aliyu, S.H.; Brown, N.M.; Limmathurotsakul, D.; Peacock, S.J.; Török, M.E. Impact of routine bedside infectious disease consultation on clinical management and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in adults. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Forsblom, E.; Ruotsalainen, E.; Ollgren, J.; Jarvinen, A. Telephone Consultation Cannot Replace Bedside Infectious Disease Consultation in the Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 56, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Gram-negative and -positive bacteria isolated in blood and respiratory specimens in intensive care units, ICUs, n = 1216 (group A, pre-pandemic period, n = 393 and group B, pandemic period, n = 823) (2018–2019).
Figure 1. Gram-negative and -positive bacteria isolated in blood and respiratory specimens in intensive care units, ICUs, n = 1216 (group A, pre-pandemic period, n = 393 and group B, pandemic period, n = 823) (2018–2019).
Pathogens 12 00780 g001
Figure 2. Gram-negative and -positive bacteria isolated in blood and respiratory specimens in surgical and medical wards, n = 3353 (group A, n = 1285 and group B, n = 2068) (2018–2019).
Figure 2. Gram-negative and -positive bacteria isolated in blood and respiratory specimens in surgical and medical wards, n = 3353 (group A, n = 1285 and group B, n = 2068) (2018–2019).
Pathogens 12 00780 g002
Figure 3. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem, amikacin, and colistin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 152 and pandemic period, group B, n = 286. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 363 and pandemic period, group B, n = 540.
Figure 3. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem, amikacin, and colistin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 152 and pandemic period, group B, n = 286. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 363 and pandemic period, group B, n = 540.
Pathogens 12 00780 g003
Figure 4. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem and colistin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 103 and pandemic period, group B, n = 210. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A, n = 291 and pandemic period, group B, n = 448.
Figure 4. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem and colistin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 103 and pandemic period, group B, n = 210. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A, n = 291 and pandemic period, group B, n = 448.
Pathogens 12 00780 g004
Figure 5. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem, amikacin and levofloxacin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 72 and pandemic period, group B, n = 177. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 363 and pandemic period, group B, n = 279.
Figure 5. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to meropenem, amikacin and levofloxacin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 72 and pandemic period, group B, n = 177. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 363 and pandemic period, group B, n = 279.
Pathogens 12 00780 g005
Figure 6. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Enterococcus feacium isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to vancomycin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in wards, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 31 and pandemic period, group B, n = 61. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 76 and pandemic period, group B, n = 150.
Figure 6. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Enterococcus feacium isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to vancomycin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in wards, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 31 and pandemic period, group B, n = 61. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 76 and pandemic period, group B, n = 150.
Pathogens 12 00780 g006
Figure 7. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to methicillin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 37 and pandemic period, group B, n = 87. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 273 and pandemic period, group B, n = 449.
Figure 7. Rates (%) of non-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolates from blood and respiratory specimens to methicillin, per semester, from patients hospitalized in surgical and medical wards and intensive care units, ICUs, 2018–2022. ICUs: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 37 and pandemic period, group B, n = 87. Wards: pre-pandemic period, group A n = 273 and pandemic period, group B, n = 449.
Pathogens 12 00780 g007
Table 1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis. Risk of death and prolonged hospital stay in hospitalized patients in wards with isolated Gram-negative/positive bacteria, per year, 2018–2022.
Table 1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis. Risk of death and prolonged hospital stay in hospitalized patients in wards with isolated Gram-negative/positive bacteria, per year, 2018–2022.
Risk of Death,
OR (95% CI)
Risk of Prolonged Hospital Stay,
OR (95% CI)
2018201920202021202220182019202020212022
Acinetobacter baumannii
Carvapenem resistant
3.6
(2.1–4.5)
n = 145
3.5
(2.4–5.1)
n = 136
3.9
(3.1–6.1)
n = 125
4.1
(3.4–6.1)
n = 162
4.2
(3.5–5.2)
n = 174
7.6
(5.3–9.5)
n = 145
7.8
(6.2–9.2)
n = 136
7.9
(7.2–9.4)
n = 125
7.8
(6.9–9.2)
n = 162
8.2
(7.6–10.1)
n = 174
Acinetobacter baumannii
Non Carvapenem resistant
2.1
(1.4–2.8)
n = 44
2.2
(1.5–2.7)
n = 38
2.4
(1.8–3.1)
n = 33
2.3
(1.7–2.9)
n = 20
2.4
(1.6–2.9)
n = 26
4.3
(3.9–5.4)
n = 44
4.5
(3.8–5.9)
n = 38
4.3
(3.7–5.4)
n = 33
4.4
(3.9–5.8)
n = 20
4.5
(3.7–5.3)
n = 26
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Carvapenem resistant
3.1
(2.4–5.1)
n = 98
3.3
(2.2–5.1)
n = 109
3.6
(2.8–5.7)
n = 106
3.5
(2.9–4.3)
n = 110
3.8
(2.6–4.1)
n = 126
6.5
(5.4–7.9)
n = 98
6.7
(5.6–8.4)
n = 109
6.7
(6.2–8.6)
n = 106
6.9
(5.9–7.8)
n = 110
7.1
(6.5–8.9)
n = 126
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Non Carvapenem resistant
2.2
(1.4–2.8)
n = 46
1.9
(1.3–2.7)
n = 38
2.1
(1.6–2.9)
n = 40
2.2
(1.5–3.1)
n = 36
2.3
(1.6–2.8)
n = 30
3.1
(2.7–4.2)
n = 46
3.3
(2.7–4.5)
n = 38
3.4
(2.8–4.7)
n = 40
3.5
(2.7–4.9)
n = 36
3.5
(2.8–4.8)
n = 30
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
MDR,
Multidrug resistant
3.1
(2.4–4.7)
n = 87
3.4
(2.4–4.9)
n = 121
3.8
(2.4–5.9)
n = 101
3.7
(2.9– 2.8)
n = 131
3.9
(3.1–4.3)
n = 129
5.6
(4.6–7.3) n = 87
5.8
(4.5–7.9) n = 121
5.9
(4.5–7.2) n = 101
6.4
(5.9–7.3) n = 131
6.5
(4.9–8.2) n = 129
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Non MDR, Non
Multidrug resistant
1.9
(1.3–3.7)
n = 31
2.0
(1.4–3.8)
n = 30
2.1
(1.5–3.7)
n = 35
2.1
(1.6–3.9)
n = 43
2.2
(1.7–3.8)
n = 40
3.2
(2.8–4.3)
n = 31
3.3
(2.7–4.9)
n = 30
2.9
(2.6–4.5)
n = 35
3.0
(2.4–4.2)
n = 43
3.1
(2.6–4.9)
n = 40
Enterococcus faecium
VRE,
Vancomycin resistant
1.4
(0.9–1.8)
n = 8
1.6 (1.1–3.6)
n = 12
1.6 (1.2–3.4)
n = 15
1.9
(1.1– 2.2)
n = 17
2.1 (1.7–2.9)
n = 18
3.9
(3.1–5.3)
n = 8
3.8
(3.1–5.7) n = 12
4.2
(3.6–6.3) n = 15
4.6
(4.5–7.6) n = 17
4.8
(4.1–7.3) n = 18
Enterococcus faecium
Non VRE,
Non Vancomycin resistant
1.1
(0.7–1.7)
n = 27
1.2
(0.7–2.1)
n = 29
1.3
(0.8–2.4)
n = 32
1.4
(0.9–2.6)
n = 30
1.4
(0.9–2.5)
n = 36
2.5
(1.9–3.8)
n = 27
2.6
(2.1–3.9)
n = 29
2.5
(1.8–3.7)
n = 32
2.7
(2.0–3.9)
n = 30
2.6
(1.9–3.7)
n = 36
Staphylococcus aureus
MRSA,
Methicillin resistant
3.0
(2.1–4.9)
n = 48
3.0
(2.2–4.7)
n = 41
3.1
(2.3– 4.5)
n = 52
3.2
(2.4–4.1)
n = 59
3.4 (2.8–4.9)
n = 55
2.3
(2.1–4.6)
n = 48
2.3 (2.1–4.3)
n = 41
2.4
(2.1–4.1) n = 52
2.4
(1.8–4.3) n = 59
2.6
(2.2–5.1) n = 55
Staphylococcus aureus
Non MRSA,
Non Methicillin resistant
1.7
(0.8–2.6)
n = 95
1.6
(0.9–2.6)
n = 90
1.6
(1.0–2.6)
n = 90
1.8
(1.1–2.9)
n = 98
1.8
(1.0–2.8)
n = 90
2.1
(1.4–3.5)
n = 95
2.2
(1.4–3.7)
n = 90
2.3
(1.6–3.7)
n = 90
2.3
(1.5–3.8)
n = 98
2.4
(1.5–3.9)
n = 90
p-value < 0.001p-value < 0.001
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of patients with bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of patients with bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Pre-Pandemic Period
2018–2019 (n = 246)
Group A
COVID-19 Pandemic
2020–2022 (n = 154)
Group B
Gender, male166 (67.2%)98 (63.6%)
Age, years, mean ± SD65.6 (50.4–76.4)65.8 (50.5–77.4)
Duration of bacteraemia symptoms before treatment initiation
0–24 h158 (64.2%)73 (47.4%)
25–72 h25 (10.2%)34 (22.1%)
>72 h55 (22.4%)36 (23.4%)
Unknown8 (3.2%)11 (7.1%)
Telephone consultation37 (15%)117 (76%)
Bedside consultation209 (85%)37 (24%)
Table 3. Comorbidities of patients with bloodstream infection and reported infectious disease consultation.
Table 3. Comorbidities of patients with bloodstream infection and reported infectious disease consultation.
Group A, 2018–2019
(n = 246)
Group B, 2020–2022
(n = 154)
p-Value
Operation within 30 days34 (13.8%)29 (18.8%)0.04
Diabetes mellitus type 289 (36.2%)68 (44.2%)0.12
Heart failure26 (10.6%)19 (12.3%)0.02
Coronary disease49 (19.9%)18 (11.7%)0.45
Peripheral Vascular disease11 (4.5%)12 (7.8%)0.12
Cerebrovascular disease18 (7.3%)17 (11%)0.05
Chronic respiratory disease9 (3.7%)8 (5.2%)0.04
Malignancies25 (10.2%)35 (22.7%)0.24
Transplantation14 (5.7%)11 (7.14%)1.02
Immunosuppresion38 (15.4%)24 (15.6%)0.87
Chronic renal disease22 (8.9%)19 (12.3%)0.04
Prosthetic device56 (22.8%)47 (30.5%)0.02
Charlson comorbidity index
Score ≥ 3
102 (41%)67 (43.5%)0.02
Table 4. Clinical features of infections in adults with bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Table 4. Clinical features of infections in adults with bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Group A
2018–2019
(n = 246)
Group B
2020–2022
(n = 154)
p-Value
Community-acquired infection96 (39%)56 (36.3%)0.001
Hospital-acquired infection150 (61%)98 (63.6%)0.001
Multidrug-resistant bacteria83 (33.7%)57 (37%)0.001
Focus of infection
Unknown16 (6.5%)18 (11.7%)0.004
Central venous catheter46 (18.7%)31 (20.1%)0.156
Peripheral venous catheter 34 (13.8%)21 (13.6%)0.458
Thrombophlebitis12 (4.9%)27 (17.5%)0.024
Implanted vascular device21 (8.5%)16 (10.4%)0.048
Infective endocarditis11 (4.5%)16 (10.4%)0.678
Native valve6 (2.4%)7 (4.5%)0.465
Prosthetic valve5 (2%)9 (5.8%)0.247
Joint infection10 (4.1%)9 (5.8%)0.765
Prosthetic joint infection15 (6.1%)19 (12.3%)0.223
Vertebral osteomyelitis13 (5.3%)17 (11%)0.058
Intra-abdominal infections26 (10%)18 (11.7%)0.047
Osteomyelitis/diabetic foot ulcers29 (11.8%)20 (13%)0.023
Skin and soft-tissue infections24 (9.8%)19 (12.3%)0.027
Respiratory infections32 (13%)21 (13.6%)0.057
Urinary tract infections19 (7.7%)16 (10.4%)0.077
Central nervous system infections9 (3.7%)7 (4.5%)0.065
Complicated infection134 (54.5%)87 (56.5%)0.001
Table 5. Clinical indicators and outcomes in the management of bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Table 5. Clinical indicators and outcomes in the management of bloodstream infections (group, n = 246 and group, n = 154).
Group A
2018–2019
(n = 246)
Group B
2020–2022
(n = 154)
p-Value
Septic shock8 (3.3%)7 (4.5%)0.118
Hospitalization in ICU11 (4.5%)12 (7.8%)0.245
Hospital stay, days, mean ± SD29 (17–52)30 (16–51)0.457
Mortality
Within 28 days12 (4.9%)16 (10.4%)0.001
Within 90 days19 (7.7%)23 (14.9%)0.001
Repeated blood culture137 (55.7%)56 (36.4%)0.001
Negative blood culture within 7 days98 (40%)48 (31.2%)0.001
Recurrent disease9 (3.6%)6 (3.9%)0.458
Duration of antibiotic treatment, days, mean ± SD 15 (8–19)11 (6–12)0.04
Repeated clinical estimation112 (45.5%)36 (23.4%)0.001
Combination of antibiotics26 (10.6%)11 (7.1%)0.001
Recorded bloodstream infection (isolated pathogen) in discharge summary124 (50.4%)44 (28.6%)0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Petrakis, V.; Panopoulou, M.; Rafailidis, P.; Lemonakis, N.; Lazaridis, G.; Terzi, I.; Papazoglou, D.; Panagopoulos, P. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antimicrobial Resistance and Management of Bloodstream Infections. Pathogens 2023, 12, 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12060780

AMA Style

Petrakis V, Panopoulou M, Rafailidis P, Lemonakis N, Lazaridis G, Terzi I, Papazoglou D, Panagopoulos P. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antimicrobial Resistance and Management of Bloodstream Infections. Pathogens. 2023; 12(6):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12060780

Chicago/Turabian Style

Petrakis, Vasilios, Maria Panopoulou, Petros Rafailidis, Nikolaos Lemonakis, Georgios Lazaridis, Irene Terzi, Dimitrios Papazoglou, and Periklis Panagopoulos. 2023. "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antimicrobial Resistance and Management of Bloodstream Infections" Pathogens 12, no. 6: 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12060780

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop