连续输注与间歇输注利奈唑胺治疗感染性休克危重患者的疗效和安全性。

IF 1.5 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-30 DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848
Ahmed M Albadry, Hend Y Zakaria, Mai M Elhefny, Ibrahim M Elsherif
{"title":"连续输注与间歇输注利奈唑胺治疗感染性休克危重患者的疗效和安全性。","authors":"Ahmed M Albadry, Hend Y Zakaria, Mai M Elhefny, Ibrahim M Elsherif","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>p</i> < 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.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47664,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"28 12","pages":"1118-1121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed M Albadry, Hend Y Zakaria, Mai M Elhefny, Ibrahim M Elsherif\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 (<i>p</i> < 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.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"28 12\",\"pages\":\"1118-1121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695889/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合成抗菌剂利奈唑胺有效地渗透许多组织,并对耐药的革兰氏阳性细菌有效。这种药物的药代动力学特性使人们怀疑在严重疾病的情况下是否需要静脉注射治疗。为了使其时间依赖性作用产生影响,血清水平必须在整个给药间隔内保持在最低抑制浓度以上。根据我们的研究,利奈唑胺被建议连续输注,以维持足够的组织和血清水平,没有谷浓度波动。这将优化药物的作用,防止毒性和耐药性。在重症监护室经历脓毒性休克的危重患者中,本研究试图验证连续输注利奈唑胺与常规方案相比的安全性和有效性。一项前瞻性、随机、对照研究涉及140名18岁以上的感染性休克患者。随机分配两组患者。间歇输注组平均治疗时间为9.83±2.537,连续输注组平均治疗时间为7.39±1.653。第一组给予利奈唑胺600 mg静脉滴注,每日2次,间歇输注(II) 60分钟,第二组给予300 mg静脉滴注,第一天连续输注900 mg/天,随后连续输注1200 mg/天。持续输注组临床治愈率显著高于对照组,ICU和住院时间显著低于对照组(p < 0.001)。此外,持续输注的肾功能损害患者发生血小板减少的发生率较低。对于革兰氏阳性菌感染继发脓毒性休克的重症患者,特别是肾功能不全患者,持续输注方式在提高临床疗效方面具有优势。如何引用本文:Albadry AM, Zakaria HY, Elhefny MM, Elsherif IM。连续输注与间歇输注利奈唑胺治疗感染性休克危重患者的疗效和安全性。中华检验医学杂志;2009;28(12):1118-1121。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy and Safety of Continuous vs Intermittent Linezolid Infusion in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock.

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 (p < 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (ISSN 0972-5229) is specialty periodical published under the auspices of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. Journal encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the fields of critical and emergency medicine.
期刊最新文献
Prevention of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit through Nonpharmacological Interventions: An Umbrella Review. Risk Factors for Mortality after Out-of-hospital Resuscitation are More Diverse than Assumed. ARDS Ventilation, The Man Behind the Evolution. Association of Glycemic Variability with Outcomes in Non-diabetic Sepsis Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Author Response: Continuous Infusion of Propofol or Dexmedetomidine should not be the First Choice to Prevent Postoperative Delirium in Patients after Hip Fracture.
×
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