Rafati Mohammad Reza, Rouini Mohammad Reza, Mojtahedzadeh Mojtaba, Najafi Atabak, Tavakoli Hassan, Gholami Kheirollah, Fazeli Mohammad Reza
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006 Aug;28(2):122-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.02.020. Epub 2006 Jul 3.
Since the bactericidal effects of beta-lactam antibiotics are time dependent, the optimum strategy for their administration could be continuous infusion. In this prospective, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy of continuous infusion therapy, we evaluated the outcomes for 40 septic critically ill patients who received piperacillin either continuously (2 g intravenously (i.v.) over 0.5 h as a loading dose followed by 8 g i.v. daily over 24 h (n=20)) or as an intermittent infusion (3 g i.v. every 6h over 0.5 h (n=20)). Results from our study demonstrated that the clinical efficacy of piperacillin as a continuous infusion is superior to intermittent administration in critically ill patients. Change in APACHE II scores from baseline at the end of the second, third and fourth days, respectively, were 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 for continuous infusion and 2.0, 2.6 and 2.8 for intermittent infusion (P< or =0.04). Considering minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 16 microg/mL and 32 microg/mL, the percentage of time for which piperacillin plasma concentrations were higher than the MIC (%T>MIC) was calculated for each patient in the two groups. For MICs of 16 microg/mL and 32 microg/mL, %T>MIC in the continuous infusion group was 100% and 65% of the dosing interval, respectively; in the intermittent infusion group, %T>MIC was only 62% and 39% of the dosing interval. There was a significant relationship between clinical results and laboratory data. It was shown that the superiority of the clinical efficacy of continuous infusion could be related to piperacillin pharmacodynamics. Continuous infusion significantly reduced the severity of illness as demonstrated by APACHE II scores during therapy.
由于β-内酰胺类抗生素的杀菌作用具有时间依赖性,其最佳给药策略可能是持续输注。在这项评估持续输注疗法临床疗效的前瞻性随机对照试验中,我们评估了40例脓毒症重症患者的治疗结果,这些患者接受哌拉西林治疗,其中20例患者接受持续输注(负荷剂量为2g静脉注射,0.5小时输完,随后每日8g静脉注射,24小时输完),另外20例患者接受间歇输注(每6小时3g静脉注射,0.5小时输完)。我们的研究结果表明,在重症患者中,哌拉西林持续输注的临床疗效优于间歇给药。在第二天、第三天和第四天结束时,持续输注组APACHE II评分相对于基线的变化分别为4.1、5.1和5.2,间歇输注组分别为2.0、2.6和2.8(P≤0.04)。考虑到最低抑菌浓度(MIC)为16μg/mL和32μg/mL,计算了两组中每位患者哌拉西林血浆浓度高于MIC的时间百分比(%T>MIC)。对于MIC为16μg/mL和32μg/mL的情况,持续输注组的%T>MIC分别为给药间隔的100%和65%;间歇输注组的%T>MIC仅为给药间隔的62%和39%。临床结果与实验室数据之间存在显著关系。结果表明,持续输注临床疗效的优越性可能与哌拉西林的药效学有关。持续输注显著降低了治疗期间APACHE II评分所显示的疾病严重程度。