The main resistance problem is represented by ESBL producers Enterobacteriaceae, even today frequently found in community acquired infections. Many factors can raise the risk of selection of ESBL but prior exposition to antibiotics (mainly third generation cephalosporins) and comorbidities that make frequent the exposure of patients to multiple antibiotic treatments, are the most significant [1, 176, 177]. Many others factors can contribute to the severity of an intra-abdominal infection and to a patient’s risk for a poor outcome, like patient age, underlying co-morbidities, extent of infection, nutritional status and the success of initial source control procedures. Dividing

patients with intra-abdominal infections into lower and higher risk categories is not always simple, but buy CA-4948 attempting to assess a patient’s risk of treatment failure is essential to optimize a treatment plan. In this context adding a standardized evaluation of the clinical click here condition, represented by the sepsis grading, may be extremely helpful. In fact in critically ill patients the possibility that the normal flora

may be modified and that the IAI could be caused by several unexpected pathogens and by more resistant flora must be considered. In these patients antimicrobial regimens with broader spectrum of activity are recommended. Therefore in a stable and low risk patient a simpler antibiotic choice, not including ESBL in the spectrum of activity is correct, while in critical and high risk patients any

antibiotic regimen must take into account the risk of ESBL. The available therapeutic options for the treatment of ESBL-associated infections are limited by drug resistance conferred by the ESBLs. The frequently observed Protein kinase N1 co-resistances include various antibiotic classes (fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole). Carbapenems, stable against hydrolyzing activity of ESBLs, are considered as the drug of choice for the treatment of these infections. Tigecycline and polymyxins have a strong in vitro antimicrobial activity against ESBL-producing bacteria, and the first should be considered a reasonable alternative. This is FHPI supplier particularly true from an epidemiological point of view; in fact today any large hospital should implement carbapenems-sparing stewardship programs to control the spread of carbapenemase producing gram negative bacteria. Although in the prospective French survey by Montravers and coll, a higher percentage of isolation of Enterococcus faecalis in non surviving patients was reported (23% versus 9%) [35], empirical treatment against Enterococci and has not been generally recommended for patients with community-acquired IAI. In fact in several clinical trials comparing different therapeutic options inclusion/exclusion of agents with enterococcal coverage provides no impact in outcomes for patients with community-acquired infections [178, 179].