IF 2.4 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":"预防性雾化抗生素对预防重症监护病房获得性肺炎的作用:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","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":2.4000,"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":"{\"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\":2.4000,\"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}","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
摘要
目的:通过荟萃分析,评价预防性抗生素雾化预防重症监护病房(ICU)获得性肺炎的有效性和安全性。方法:通过检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,从数据库建立到2024年1月23日,收集调查预防性雾化抗生素可能降低icu获得性肺炎发病率的随机对照试验(RCTs)。主要终点是ICU获得性肺炎的发生率,次要终点包括死亡率、ICU住院时间、机械通气天数和雾化相关副作用。采用RevMan 5.3和STATA 14.0软件进行统计学分析。结果:共纳入6项随机对照试验,共纳入1287例患者(研究组636例患者接受预防性抗生素治疗,包括多粘菌素B、妥布霉素、头孢他啶、粘菌酸钠、阿米卡星;对照组651例以生理盐水为主)。结果显示,与对照组相比,预防性抗生素雾化治疗显著降低了icu获得性肺炎的发生率(优势比(OR) = 0.57, 95%可信区间(CI) [0.43-0.74], P < 0.0001)。治疗组与对照组的死亡率无显著差异(OR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.68-1.10], P = 0.24)。预防性抗生素雾化治疗也没有显著减少ICU住院时间(MD = 0.2天;95% CI [-0.81 ~ 1.20], P = 0.70)或机械通气天数(MD = 0.43天;95% CI [-0.47 ~ 1.33], P = 0.35)。此外,没有证据表明预防性雾化抗生素治疗会导致多重耐药(MDR)细菌性肺炎的发生或增加相关副作用(如气道痉挛)的发生率。结论:本荟萃分析提示重症监护病房获得性肺炎可以通过预防性雾化抗生素治疗来预防,而不会增加耐多药细菌感染或气道痉挛的风险。然而,ICU获得性肺炎发生率的降低并没有导致死亡率或ICU住院时间的显著改善。
Effects of prophylactic nebulized antibiotics on the prevention of ICU-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.