• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

重新审视辅助治疗粪肠球菌心内膜炎的证据基础:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Revisiting the Evidence Base That Informs the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

出版信息

Clin Infect Dis. 2024 Nov 22;79(5):1162-1171. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae379.

DOI:10.1093/cid/ciae379
PMID:39041860
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

For historical context, we reviewed seminal case series and in vitro studies on the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 16 January 2024 for studies of EFIE that compared adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or adjunctive versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens using random effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis was limited to 10 observational studies at high risk of bias (911 patients). Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (risk difference [RD], -0.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 3.5), relapse (RD, -0.1%; 95% CI, -2.4 to 2.3), and treatment failure (RD, 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.7) but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD, 26.3%; 95% CI, 19.8 to 32.7). The 3 studies that compared adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients, and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.

摘要

背景

尽管存在毒性风险,指南仍建议在治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎(EFIE)时使用庆大霉素作为辅助治疗。我们试图重新审视 EFIE 辅助治疗的证据,并通过系统评价和荟萃分析综合比较氨基糖苷类药物与头孢曲松的安全性和有效性。

方法

为了了解历史背景,我们回顾了关于青霉素单一疗法向现代 EFIE 治疗方案演变的重要病例系列和体外研究。接下来,我们在 MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库中从建库至 2024 年 1 月 16 日搜索了比较 EFIE 辅助氨基糖苷类药物与头孢曲松或辅助与单一疗法的研究。在可能的情况下,我们使用随机效应荟萃分析比较了不同方案的临床结局。否则,我们对数据进行了叙述性总结。

结果

荟萃分析仅限于高偏倚风险的 10 项观察性研究(911 名患者)。与辅助头孢曲松相比,庆大霉素的全因死亡率(风险差 [RD],-0.8%;95%置信区间 [CI],-5.0 至 3.5)、复发(RD,-0.1%;95% CI,-2.4 至 2.3)和治疗失败(RD,1.1%;95% CI,-1.6 至 3.7)相似,但毒性导致停药的比例更高(RD,26.3%;95% CI,19.8 至 32.7)。比较辅助治疗与单一治疗的 3 项研究仅纳入了 30 名单一治疗患者,且存在异质性,因此无法进行荟萃分析。

结论

辅助头孢曲松治疗 EFIE 的效果似乎与庆大霉素相当,且毒性更小。现有证据并未明确确定辅助治疗或单一治疗的优越性。在等待随机对照试验证据的情况下,如果要使用辅助治疗,头孢曲松似乎是一个合理的选择。

相似文献

1
Revisiting the Evidence Base That Informs the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.重新审视辅助治疗粪肠球菌心内膜炎的证据基础:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Infect Dis. 2024 Nov 22;79(5):1162-1171. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciae379.
2
Comparison of Dual β-Lactam therapy to penicillin-aminoglycoside combination in treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis.比较治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎时,双联β-内酰胺类抗生素治疗与青霉素-氨基糖苷类抗生素联合治疗的效果。
J Infect. 2018 Nov;77(5):398-404. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.06.013. Epub 2018 Jun 30.
3
Combination therapy versus monotherapy: retrospective analysis of antibiotic treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.联合治疗与单一疗法:肠球菌性心内膜炎抗生素治疗的回顾性分析
BMC Infect Dis. 2025 Jan 20;25(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12879-025-10451-2.
4
Changes in the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis in Spain in the last 15 years: from ampicillin plus gentamicin to ampicillin plus ceftriaxone.过去 15 年西班牙粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎治疗的变化:从氨苄西林联合庆大霉素到氨苄西林联合头孢曲松。
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Dec;20(12):O1075-83. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12756. Epub 2014 Aug 11.
5
Evaluation of penicillin-gentamicin and dual beta-lactam therapies in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis.评估青霉素-庆大霉素和双联β-内酰胺类抗生素治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎的疗效。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2022 Mar;59(3):106522. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106522. Epub 2022 Jan 15.
6
Efficacy of ampicillin combined with ceftriaxone and gentamicin in the treatment of experimental endocarditis due to Enterococcus faecalis with no high-level resistance to aminoglycosides.氨苄西林联合头孢曲松和庆大霉素治疗对氨基糖苷类无高水平耐药的粪肠球菌所致实验性心内膜炎的疗效
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Sep;52(3):514-7. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkg360. Epub 2003 Aug 13.
7
Ampicillin plus ceftriaxone is as effective as ampicillin plus gentamicin for treating enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis.氨苄西林联合头孢曲松治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎的疗效与氨苄西林联合庆大霉素相当。
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(9):1261-8. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit052. Epub 2013 Feb 7.
8
Which trial do we need? Aminopenicillin-gentamicin versus aminopenicillin-ceftriaxone for Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis.我们需要哪种试验?氨苄青霉素 - 庆大霉素与氨苄青霉素 - 头孢曲松治疗粪肠球菌心内膜炎的比较。
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023 Jun;29(6):676-678. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.02.023. Epub 2023 Mar 6.
9
Time to abandon ampicillin plus gentamicin in favour of ampicillin plus ceftriaxone in Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis? A meta-analysis of comparative trials.是否应该放弃氨苄西林联合庆大霉素,转而采用氨苄西林联合头孢曲松治疗粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎?一项比较试验的荟萃分析。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2022 Oct;111(10):1077-1086. doi: 10.1007/s00392-021-01971-3. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
10
Enterococcal endocarditis revisited.再谈肠球菌性心内膜炎。
Future Microbiol. 2015;10(7):1215-40. doi: 10.2217/fmb.15.46. Epub 2015 Jun 29.