Hurley James C
BMC Infect Dis. 2014 Dec 31;14:714. doi: 10.1186/s12879-014-0714-x.
Among methods for preventing pneumonia and possibly also bacteremia in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, Selective Digestive Decontamination (SDD) appears most effective within randomized concurrent controlled trials (RCCT's) although more recent trials have been cluster randomized. However, of the SDD components, whether protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP) is required, and whether the topical antibiotic actually presents a contextual hazard, remain unresolved. The objective here is to compare the bacteremia rates and patterns of isolates in SDD-RCCT's versus the broader evidence base.
Bacteremia incidence proportion data were extracted from component (control and intervention) groups decanted from studies investigating antibiotic (SDD) or non-antibiotic methods of VAP prevention and summarized using random effects meta-analysis of study and group level data. A reference category of groups derived from purely observational studies without any prevention method under study provided a benchmark incidence.
Within SDD RCCTs, the mean bacteremia incidence among concurrent component groups not exposed to PPAP (27 control; 17.1%; 13.1-22.1% and 12 intervention groups; 16.2%; 9.1-27.3%) is double that of the benchmark bacteremia incidence derived from 39 benchmark groups (8.3; 6.8-10.2%) and also 20 control groups from studies of non-antibiotic methods (7.1%; 4.8 - 10.5). There is a selective increase in coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) but not in Pseudomonas aeruginosa among bacteremia isolates within control groups of SDD-RCCT's versus benchmark groups with data available.
The topical antibiotic component of SDD presents a major contextual hazard toward bacteremia against which the PPAP component partially mitigates.
在预防重症监护病房(ICU)患者肺炎以及可能的菌血症的方法中,选择性消化道去污(SDD)在随机同期对照试验(RCCT)中似乎最为有效,尽管最近的试验是整群随机的。然而,关于SDD的组成部分,是否需要程序化的肠外抗生素预防(PPAP),以及局部使用的抗生素是否真的存在背景风险,仍未得到解决。本文的目的是比较SDD-RCCT中的菌血症发生率和分离株模式与更广泛的证据基础。
从研究抗生素(SDD)或非抗生素预防VAP方法的研究中抽取的对照组和干预组中提取菌血症发病率比例数据,并使用研究和组水平数据的随机效应荟萃分析进行汇总。来自未研究任何预防方法的纯观察性研究的组的参考类别提供了基准发病率。
在SDD RCCT中,未接受PPAP的同期组件组中的平均菌血症发生率(27个对照组;17.1%;13.1 - 22.1%和12个干预组;16.2%;9.1 - 27.3%)是来自39个基准组(8.3;6.8 - 10.2%)以及20个非抗生素方法研究中的对照组(7.1%;4.8 - 10.5)的基准菌血症发生率的两倍。与有数据的基准组相比,SDD-RCCT对照组中的菌血症分离株中凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(CNS)有选择性增加,但铜绿假单胞菌没有。
SDD的局部抗生素成分对菌血症构成了重大的背景风险,而PPAP成分可部分减轻这种风险。