Continuous versus Intermittent Use of Meropenem in Septic Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trail

Saad Saad, Bsem Aglan, Eslam Shaboob, Hossam Abdelghany
{"title":"Continuous versus Intermittent Use of Meropenem in Septic Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trail","authors":"Saad Saad, Bsem Aglan, Eslam Shaboob, Hossam Abdelghany","doi":"10.21608/bmfj.2023.247556.1949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Meropenem is commonly used in the treatment of critically ill patients with sepsis. However, the optimal dosing regimen remains a subject of debate. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous infusion of meropenem versus traditional intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis, and to evaluate the safety of both dosing regimens. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted on critically ill patients diagnosed with sepsis and admitted to the ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to either the continuous infusion group (n=30) or the intermittent intravenous group (n=30). Clinical parameters, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Microbiological outcomes, including microbiological eradication and superinfection, were assessed. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed to evaluate drug concentrations. Results : The superinfection rate (requiring other antibiotics) was lower in the continuous group (3.3%) compared to 16.7% in intermittent group. The mean total fluid infusion in the first 24hr was 4190 ml in the continuous group compared to 4336 ml in the intermittent group. The mean length of ICU stay was 10.10 ± 6.12 days in the continuous group compared to 11.60 ± 5.55 days in the intermittent group. A significantly lower mean duration of meropenem treatment (9.93 days) was associated with continuous group compared to 11.53 days in intermittent group. Mortality rate was lower in the continuous group (26.7%) compared to intermittent group (40%). Conclusion: Continuous infusion of meropenem demonstrated superior clinical and bacteriological outcomes in critically ill septic patients compared to intermittent administration.","PeriodicalId":503219,"journal":{"name":"Benha Medical Journal","volume":"72 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benha Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/bmfj.2023.247556.1949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Meropenem is commonly used in the treatment of critically ill patients with sepsis. However, the optimal dosing regimen remains a subject of debate. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous infusion of meropenem versus traditional intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis, and to evaluate the safety of both dosing regimens. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted on critically ill patients diagnosed with sepsis and admitted to the ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to either the continuous infusion group (n=30) or the intermittent intravenous group (n=30). Clinical parameters, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Microbiological outcomes, including microbiological eradication and superinfection, were assessed. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed to evaluate drug concentrations. Results : The superinfection rate (requiring other antibiotics) was lower in the continuous group (3.3%) compared to 16.7% in intermittent group. The mean total fluid infusion in the first 24hr was 4190 ml in the continuous group compared to 4336 ml in the intermittent group. The mean length of ICU stay was 10.10 ± 6.12 days in the continuous group compared to 11.60 ± 5.55 days in the intermittent group. A significantly lower mean duration of meropenem treatment (9.93 days) was associated with continuous group compared to 11.53 days in intermittent group. Mortality rate was lower in the continuous group (26.7%) compared to intermittent group (40%). Conclusion: Continuous infusion of meropenem demonstrated superior clinical and bacteriological outcomes in critically ill septic patients compared to intermittent administration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脓毒症重症患者连续使用美罗培南与间歇性使用美罗培南的对比:随机对照试验
背景:美罗培南常用于治疗患有败血症的重症患者。然而,最佳给药方案仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较连续输注美罗培南与传统间歇给药在脓毒症重症患者中的药代动力学、临床和细菌学疗效,并评估两种给药方案的安全性。研究方法这项前瞻性随机对照试验针对被诊断为脓毒症并住进重症监护室的重症患者。患者被随机分配到持续输注组(30 人)或间歇静脉注射组(30 人)。记录临床参数、实验室数据和临床结果。对微生物结果进行了评估,包括微生物根除和超级感染。进行药代动力学分析以评估药物浓度。结果:连续用药组的超级感染率(需要使用其他抗生素)为 3.3%,低于间歇用药组的 16.7%。连续用药组在最初 24 小时内的平均输液总量为 4190 毫升,而间歇用药组为 4336 毫升。连续用药组在重症监护室的平均住院时间为(10.10 ± 6.12)天,而间歇用药组为(11.60 ± 5.55)天。连续用药组的美罗培南平均治疗时间(9.93 天)明显低于间歇用药组的 11.53 天。连续治疗组的死亡率(26.7%)低于间歇治疗组(40%)。结论连续输注美罗培南对重症脓毒症患者的临床和细菌学疗效优于间歇给药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease on Health-Related Quality of Life Comparing Fair Control of Hyperglycemia contrary to Intensive Control in Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Procedure Comparison of the Onset Time between 0.25% Bupivacaine and 0.5% Bupivacaine for Ultrasound‑Guided Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized Clinical Trial Intramedullary Nailing Versus Minmally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) in Management of Distal Tibial Fractures Correlation between serum estrogen level and endometrial histology in cases of fibroid uterus in peri-menopausal peroid
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1