• J H Elderman, D S Y Ong, van der VoortP H JPHJDepartment of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands., and E-J Wils.
• Department of Intensive Care, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands; Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.elderman@erasmusmc.nl.
• J Crit Care. 2021 Aug 1; 64: 262-269.

PurposeDespite increasing evidence and updated national guidelines, practice of anti-infectious strategies appears to vary in the Netherlands. This study aimed to determine the variation of current practices of anti-infectious strategies in Dutch ICUs.Materials And MethodsIn 2018 and 2019 an online survey of all Dutch ICUs was conducted with detailed questions on their anti-infectious strategies.Results89% (63 of 71) of the Dutch ICUs responded to the online survey. The remaining ICUs were contacted by telephone. 47 (66%) of the Dutch ICUs used SDD, 14 (20%) used SOD and 10 (14%) used neither SDD nor SOD. Within these strategies considerable heterogeneity was observed in the start criteria of SDD/SOD, the regimen adjustments based on microbiological surveillance and the monitoring of the interventions.ConclusionsThe proportion of Dutch ICUs applying SDD or SOD increased over time. Considerable heterogeneity in the regimens was reported. The impact of the observed differences within SDD and SOD practices on clinical outcome remains to be explored.Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…