Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Department of Medicine (DIMED), Section of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padua, 13, Vincenzo Gallucci Street, 35125, Padua, PD, Italy.
Crit Care. 2024 Nov 25;28(1):387. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05159-9.
The use of inhaled antibiotics for treating pneumonia in invasively ventilated patients offers a direct approach, allowing for high local concentrations of the drug in the lower respiratory tract while simultaneously reducing systemic toxicity. However, the real efficacy and safety of nebulized antibiotics remain unclear. The aim of the present is to assess among critically adult patients with pneumonia and invasive ventilation, whether receiving adjuvant inhaled antibiotics improves the rate of microbiological eradication.
A comprehensive literature search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted (from inception until September 20, 2024, PROSPERO-CRD592906) across Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials, enrolling intensive care units (ICU) patients with pneumonia and comparing nebulized antimicrobial therapy (inhaled group) with intravenous antimicrobial treatment or intravenous antimicrobial therapy plus inhaled placebo (control group), were included. The primary outcome was the rate of microbiological eradication after treatment. Secondary outcomes were the rate of clinical recovery, the incidence of drug-related adverse events, ICU and hospital mortality. A qualitative analysis was conducted according to the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using an odds-ratio analysis. The heterogeneity and reliability of our results were evaluated using the I-statistic and trial sequential analysis (TSA), respectively.
A total of 11 RCTs (1472 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared to controls, the use of adjuvant inhaled antibiotics determined a greater rate of microbiological eradication (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.36-5.09; low certainty of evidence). The TSA confirmed the reliability of our primary outcome. Moreover, nebulized antibiotics increased the risk of bronchospasm (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.33-7.47; high evidence), while nephrotoxicity, clinical recovery, ICU and hospital survival (either in the case of pneumonia caused by MDR bacteria or not) were not different between groups.
In conclusion, compared to the sole intravenous therapy, the use of adjuvant inhaled antibiotics for treatment of pneumonia in invasively ventilated critically ill patients was associated with a greater incidence of microbiological eradication (low GRADE and high risk of publication bias), but not with clinical recovery and survival.
对于接受有创通气的肺炎患者,使用吸入性抗生素进行治疗是一种直接的方法,这种方法可以使药物在肺部下呼吸道中达到高浓度,同时降低全身毒性。然而,雾化抗生素的真正疗效和安全性仍不清楚。本研究旨在评估患有肺炎和接受有创通气的成年危重症患者中,辅助使用吸入性抗生素是否可以提高微生物清除率。
从建库至 2024 年 9 月 20 日,我们对 Medline、Embase 和 Scopus 进行了全面的文献检索,以纳入随机临床试验(RCT)。纳入比较雾化抗菌治疗(吸入组)与静脉抗菌治疗或静脉抗菌治疗加吸入安慰剂(对照组),并治疗肺炎和入住重症监护病房(ICU)的患者的 RCT。主要结局是治疗后微生物清除率。次要结局是临床康复率、药物相关不良事件发生率、ICU 和医院死亡率。根据 GRADE 框架进行定性分析。使用优势比分析汇总数据。使用 I 统计量和试验序贯分析(TSA)分别评估我们结果的异质性和可靠性。
共有 11 项 RCT(1472 名患者)符合纳入标准。与对照组相比,辅助使用吸入性抗生素可提高微生物清除率(比值比 2.63,95%置信区间 1.36-5.09;证据质量低)。TSA 证实了我们主要结局的可靠性。此外,雾化抗生素增加了支气管痉挛的风险(比值比 3.15,95%置信区间 1.33-7.47;高证据),而肾毒性、临床康复、ICU 和医院生存率(无论是在耐多药细菌引起的肺炎还是非耐多药细菌引起的肺炎的情况下)在两组之间没有差异。
总之,与单独静脉治疗相比,辅助使用吸入性抗生素治疗接受有创通气的肺炎危重症患者与微生物清除率增加相关(低 GRADE 和高发表偏倚风险),但与临床康复和生存无关。