Roberts Jason A, Webb Steven, Paterson David, Ho Kwok M, Lipman Jeffrey
Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Crit Care Med. 2009 Jun;37(6):2071-8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a0054d.
The clinical benefits of extended infusion or continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics remain controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether any clinical benefits exist for administration of beta-lactam antibiotics by extended or continuous infusion.
PubMed (January 1950 to November 2007), EMBASE (1966 to November 2007), and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched (updated November 2007).
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analyzed, and observational studies were described by two unblinded reviewers.
A total of 846 patients from eligible prospective randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two observational studies were deemed appropriate for description.
A meta-analysis of prospective RCTs was undertaken using Review Manager. Among a total of 59 potentially relevant studies, 14 RCTs involving a total of 846 patients from nine countries were deemed appropriate for meta-analysis. The use of continuous infusion of a beta-lactam antibiotic was not associated with an improvement in clinical cure (n = 755 patients; odds ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.46, p = 0.83, I = 0%) or mortality (n = 541 patients; odds ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-2.06, p = 1.00, I = 14.8%). All RCTs except one used a higher antibiotic dose in the bolus administration group. Two observational studies, not pooled because they did not meet the a priori criteria for meta-analysis, showed that beta-lactam administration by extended or continuous infusion was associated with an improvement in clinical cure. The difference in the results between the meta-analysis results and the observational studies could be explained by the bias created by a higher dose of antibiotic in the bolus group in the RCTs and because many of the RCTs only recruited patients with a low acuity of illness.
The limited data available suggest that continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics leads to the same clinical results as higher dosed bolus administration in hospitalized patients.
β-内酰胺类抗生素延长输注或持续输注的临床益处仍存在争议。我们系统回顾了文献,以确定延长或持续输注β-内酰胺类抗生素是否有任何临床益处。
检索了PubMed(1950年1月至2007年11月)、EMBASE(1966年至2007年11月)以及Cochrane对照试验注册库(2007年11月更新)。
对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,由两名非盲法评审员描述观察性研究。
荟萃分析纳入了符合条件的前瞻性随机对照研究中的846例患者。两项观察性研究被认为适合进行描述。
使用Review Manager对前瞻性RCT进行荟萃分析。在总共59项可能相关的研究中,14项RCT(涉及来自9个国家的846例患者)被认为适合进行荟萃分析。持续输注β-内酰胺类抗生素与临床治愈率的提高无关(n = 755例患者;优势比:1.04,95%置信区间:0.74 - 1.46,p = 0.83,I² = 0%)或死亡率的降低无关(n = 541例患者;优势比:1.00,95%置信区间:0.48 - 2.06,p = 1.00,I² = 14.8%)。除一项研究外,所有RCT在推注给药组使用了更高的抗生素剂量。两项观察性研究(未进行汇总,因为它们不符合荟萃分析的先验标准)表明,延长或持续输注β-内酰胺类抗生素与临床治愈率的提高相关。荟萃分析结果与观察性研究结果之间的差异可以通过RCT中推注组较高剂量抗生素造成的偏倚来解释,并且因为许多RCT仅招募病情严重程度较低的患者。
现有有限数据表明,在住院患者中,持续输注β-内酰胺类抗生素与高剂量推注给药产生相同的临床结果。