Oliveira Dayana Dos Santos, da Rocha Julia Vitória, Gasparetto Juliano, Yamada Carolina Hikari, Telles Joao Paulo, Tuon Felipe Francisco
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Hospital Universitário Cajuru, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Faculdade de Farmácia, Curitiba PR, Brazil.
Braz J Infect Dis. 2025 May 14;29(4):104538. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104538.
While there are valid concerns regarding the use of Enteral Antibiotics (EN) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the evidence opposing this practice has not been thoroughly evaluated in prior research.
This study aimed to evaluate the transition from sequential Intravenous (IV) antibiotics to EN antibiotics in critically ill patients with infections.
This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial involving patients with infections who received antibiotic therapy. The study compared sequential IV antibiotic treatment to EN therapy in patients who continued standard IV therapy in the intensive care unit. Primary outcome measures included mortality and clinical improvement assessed on days 3, 5, and 10. Secondary outcomes encompassed hospital and ICU length of stay, costs, and evaluation of microbiological failure.
A total of67 patients were included in the EN group and 60 patients in the IV group. Most patients were classified as infected (66.1 %), with 33.1 % diagnosed with sepsis. In-hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, with 31 % in the EN group and 30 % in the IV group. Clinical outcomes assessed on days 3, 5, and 10 showed no significant differences between the groups. Among the 67 patients in the EN group, 7 (10.5 %) required a return to intravenous antibiotic therapy. Notably, drug costs in the IV group increased by 207 %.
This is the first controlled and randomized study to evaluate the oral/enteral route of antibiotic administration in the ICU. The findings indicate no significant differences in clinical outcomes or survival rates between the two groups, while demonstrating reduced costs and comparable safety with EN antibiotics.
尽管对于在重症监护病房(ICU)使用肠内抗生素(EN)存在合理担忧,但此前的研究尚未对反对这种做法的证据进行全面评估。
本研究旨在评估感染的重症患者从序贯静脉注射(IV)抗生素转换为EN抗生素的情况。
这是一项前瞻性、多中心、随机、非盲的临床试验,涉及接受抗生素治疗的感染患者。该研究将序贯IV抗生素治疗与在重症监护病房继续接受标准IV治疗的患者的EN治疗进行了比较。主要结局指标包括第3、5和10天评估的死亡率和临床改善情况。次要结局包括住院时间和ICU住院时间、费用以及微生物学治疗失败的评估。
EN组共纳入67例患者,IV组纳入60例患者。大多数患者被归类为感染(66.1%),33.1%被诊断为脓毒症。两组的院内死亡率相当,EN组为31%,IV组为30%。在第3、5和10天评估的临床结局在两组之间没有显著差异。在EN组的67例患者中,7例(10.5%)需要恢复静脉抗生素治疗。值得注意的是,IV组的药物费用增加了207%。
这是第一项评估ICU中抗生素口服/肠内给药途径的对照随机研究。研究结果表明,两组在临床结局或生存率方面没有显著差异,同时显示EN抗生素成本降低且安全性相当。