Suppr超能文献

连续性与间歇性利奈唑胺输注治疗感染性休克重症患者的疗效与安全性

Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock.

作者信息

Albadry Ahmed M, Zakaria Hend Y, Elhefny Mai M, Elsherif Ibrahim M

机构信息

Department of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt.

Department of Anesthesia and ICU, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Indian J Crit Care Med. 2024 Dec;28(12):1118-1121. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848. Epub 2024 Nov 30.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

The synthetic antimicrobial agent Linezolid effectively penetrates many tissues and exhibits effectiveness against drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. This agent's pharmacokinetic qualities cast doubt on the need for intravenous treatment in cases of serious illness. For its time-dependent action to have an impact, serum levels must stay above the minimum inhibitory concentration throughout the dosage interval. According to our research, Linezolid infusions have been proposed to be given as continuous infusions to maintain adequate tissue and serum levels without trough concentration fluctuations. This will optimize the drug's effects and protect against toxicity and drug resistance. In critically ill individuals experiencing septic shock in the ICU, this study sought to validate the safety and efficacy of continuous Linezolid infusion in comparison to the conventional regimen. A prospective, randomized, controlled research involving 140 individuals suffering from septic shock who were older than 18 was carried out. Two groups of patients were randomly assigned. With an average treatment duration of 9.83 ± 2.537 in the intermittent infusion group and 7.39 ± 1.653 in the continuous infusion group, the first group obtained IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily as an intermittent infusion (II) over 60 minutes, whereas the second group obtained 300 mg IV as a loading dosage, and then continuous infusion of 900 mg/day in the first day and 1,200 mg/day in the subsequent days. There was a significantly high clinical cure and less ICU and hospital stay in the continuous infusion group ( < 0.001). Moreover, there was a lower incidence of developing thrombocytopenia in patients with renal impairment who got continuous infusion. Continuous infusion modality showed an advantage in terms of enhancing clinical efficacy in seriously ill cases with septic shock secondary to Gram-positive bacterial infection, especially in cases with renal impairment.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Albadry AM, Zakaria HY, Elhefny MM, Elsherif IM. Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(12):1118-1121.

摘要

未标注

合成抗菌药物利奈唑胺能有效穿透多种组织,对耐药革兰氏阳性菌有效。该药物的药代动力学特性让人质疑在重症病例中进行静脉治疗的必要性。因其时间依赖性作用要产生影响,血清水平在整个给药间隔期必须保持高于最低抑菌浓度。根据我们的研究,已有人提议利奈唑胺输注采用持续输注方式,以维持足够的组织和血清水平,且无谷浓度波动。这将优化药物效果,预防毒性和耐药性。在重症监护病房(ICU)中发生感染性休克的重症患者中,本研究旨在验证持续输注利奈唑胺与传统给药方案相比的安全性和有效性。开展了一项前瞻性、随机、对照研究,纳入140名年龄大于18岁的感染性休克患者。将患者随机分为两组。间歇输注组平均治疗时长为9.83±2.537天,持续输注组为7.39±1.653天,第一组每天两次静脉输注600毫克利奈唑胺,每次60分钟,为间歇输注(II),而第二组先静脉注射300毫克作为负荷剂量,然后第一天持续输注900毫克/天,后续几天为1200毫克/天。持续输注组的临床治愈率显著更高,在ICU和医院的停留时间更短(<0.001)。此外,接受持续输注的肾功能损害患者发生血小板减少症的发生率更低。在革兰氏阳性菌感染继发感染性休克的重症病例中,尤其是肾功能损害的病例,持续输注方式在提高临床疗效方面显示出优势。

如何引用本文

Albadry AM, Zakaria HY, Elhefny MM, Elsherif IM. 持续与间歇输注利奈唑胺治疗感染性休克重症患者的疗效和安全性。《印度重症监护医学杂志》2024;28(12):1118 - 1121。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0f5b/11695889/db3338afb024/ijccm-28-1118-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验