Effects of prophylactic nebulized antibiotics on the prevention of ICU-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
IF 2.3 3区 生物学Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCESPeerJPub Date : 2024-12-13eCollection Date: 2024-01-01DOI:10.7717/peerj.18686
Ming Gao, Xiaoxu Yu, Xiaoxuan Liu, Yuan Xu, Hua Zhou, Yan Zhu
{"title":"Effects of prophylactic nebulized antibiotics on the prevention of ICU-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Ming Gao, Xiaoxu Yu, Xiaoxuan Liu, Yuan Xu, Hua Zhou, Yan Zhu","doi":"10.7717/peerj.18686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic nebulized antibiotics in preventing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired pneumonia through a meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the potential reduction in the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia through prophylactic nebulized antibiotics were collected by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to January 23, 2024. The primary endpoint was the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia, while the secondary endpoints included mortality, length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation days, and nebulization-related side effects. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 14.0 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six RCTs were included in the analysis, involving 1,287 patients (636 patients in the study group received prophylactic antibiotic therapy, including Polymyxin B, Tobramycin, Ceftazidime, Colistimethate sodium, and amikacin; 651 patients in the control group primarily received saline). The results indicated that prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy significantly reduced the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia compared to that in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.43-0.74], <i>P</i> < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between the treatment and control groups (OR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.68-1.10], <i>P</i> = 0.24). Prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy also did not significantly reduce the length of ICU stay (MD = 0.2 days; 95% CI [-0.81 to 1.20], <i>P</i> = 0.70) or the number of mechanical ventilation days (MD = 0.43 days; 95% CI [-0.47 to 1.33], <i>P</i> = 0.35). Additionally, there was no evidence that prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy contributed to the development of multiple drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pneumonia or increased the incidence of associated side effects, such as airway spasms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that ICU-acquired pneumonia can be prevented by prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy in critically ill patients without increasing the risk of MDR bacterial infections or airway spasms. However, the reduction in the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia did not result in significant improvements in mortality or length of ICU stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"12 ","pages":"e18686"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11648687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18686","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic nebulized antibiotics in preventing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired pneumonia through a meta-analysis.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the potential reduction in the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia through prophylactic nebulized antibiotics were collected by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to January 23, 2024. The primary endpoint was the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia, while the secondary endpoints included mortality, length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation days, and nebulization-related side effects. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 14.0 software.
Results: A total of six RCTs were included in the analysis, involving 1,287 patients (636 patients in the study group received prophylactic antibiotic therapy, including Polymyxin B, Tobramycin, Ceftazidime, Colistimethate sodium, and amikacin; 651 patients in the control group primarily received saline). The results indicated that prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy significantly reduced the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia compared to that in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.43-0.74], P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between the treatment and control groups (OR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.68-1.10], P = 0.24). Prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy also did not significantly reduce the length of ICU stay (MD = 0.2 days; 95% CI [-0.81 to 1.20], P = 0.70) or the number of mechanical ventilation days (MD = 0.43 days; 95% CI [-0.47 to 1.33], P = 0.35). Additionally, there was no evidence that prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy contributed to the development of multiple drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pneumonia or increased the incidence of associated side effects, such as airway spasms.
Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that ICU-acquired pneumonia can be prevented by prophylactic nebulized antibiotic therapy in critically ill patients without increasing the risk of MDR bacterial infections or airway spasms. However, the reduction in the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia did not result in significant improvements in mortality or length of ICU stay.
期刊介绍:
PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.