High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative and provide good serum and alveolar levels without fluctuations in trough concentration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of continuous linezolid infusion versus the standard regimen in critically ill patients. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 179 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily, while the second group received 600 mg IV as a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/day (50 mg/h) for at least 8–10 days. The continuous infusion group showed a higher clinical cure rate than the intermittent infusion group (p = 0.046). Furthermore, efficacy was proven by greater improvement of P/F ratio (p = 0.030) on day 7 of treatment, a lower incidence of developing sepsis after beginning treatment (p = 0.009), and a shorter time to reach clinical cure (p < 0.001). Hematological parameters were also assessed during the treatment to evaluate the safety between the two groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower in the continuous infusion group than in the intermittent infusion group. In addition, a stepwise logistic regression model revealed that the intermittent infusion of linezolid was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia (OR =4.128; 95% CI = 1.681–10.139; p =0.001). The current study is the first to assess the clinical aspects of continuous infusion of linezolid beyond pharmacokinetic studies. Continuous infusion of linezolid outperforms intermittent delivery in safety and improves clinical effectiveness in critically ill patients with Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia.

Background and Objectives: Inappropriate antibiotic usage in hospitalized patients contributes to microbial resistance. Our study aimed to examine the incidence of clinical bacterial isolates and their antibiotic resistance burden among critically ill patients in different hospital units. Materials and Methods: A single-centered cross-sectional study was conducted in a 120-bed tertiary care hospital that included 221 critically ill patients with hospital-acquired infections. Bacterial cultures and sensitivity reports were obtained and followed by a formal analysis of the antibiogram results to explore recovered isolates’ prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility patterns. Results: Gram-negative bacteria were the most predominant pathogens among recovered isolates from the various hospital units (71%). Klebsiella sp. was the most prevalent microbe, followed by Acinetobacter sp., with an incidence level of 28% and 16.2%, respectively. Among the Gram-positive organisms, the coagulase-negative Staphylococci were the most predominant organism (11.3%), while (6.3%) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates were recovered from different hospital units. Antibiotic sensitivity testing showed that polymyxin B was the most effective antibiotic against Gram-negative bacteria, whereas vancomycin and linezolid were the most active antibiotics against Gram-positive pathogens. Moreover, 7% of the Gram-negative bacteria isolated from different units showed positive production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). Conclusions: The current study describes the high antibiotic resistance patterns in various hospital units that need extra legislation to prevent healthcare providers from misprescription and overuse of antibiotics.

Background: We intended in this study to evaluate the impact of the different techniques of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenting on the clinical outcomes. Methods: The study included 65 patients with ACS and left main disease subjected to UPLMCA intervention [46 males (70.8%) with median(Q1-Q3) age of 63(53-70) years old] in an observational prospective cohort study. Data were collected through reviewing patient’s medical records and angiographic procedures. Angiographic assessment included evaluation of Syntax II score, EURO II score, and TIMI flow grading. The primary outcome was the major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) at 1 year while the secondary outcomes included the development of acute kidney injury (AKI), one year mortality, and need for CABG post PCI. Results: One-year MACCE was 46.2 % when the angle between LAD and LCX was>70o compared to 81.5% when it was less than 70o (P=0.008). The wide angle was also associated with 0% 1-year mortality compared to 18.5% for narrow angle, a difference which is statistically significant (P=0.03). The 1-year MACCE was 35.7% compared to 74.4% when it was not used (P=0.013). When POT was used, the 1-year MACCE was 47.6% compared to 75% when it was not used (P=0.041). None of the other studied parameters including those related to procedure technique was significantly affecting the outcome in our study. Conclusion: We concluded that the non-use of FKI nor POT together with the lower angulation between LAD and LCX could predict worse clinical outcome at one-year in unprotected left main PCI.