Scholarlink

Objective <p>To assess whether continuous infusion of β-lactam antibiotics improves clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.</p> Results <p>Eleven studies involving 9,166 patients were analyzed, comparing continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in sepsis or septic shock. There was no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88–1.01) or ICU mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88–1.01). Continuous infusion was associated with lower hospital mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85–0.99), higher survival at the end of the study (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02–1.07), and higher clinical cure rate (RR 1.42; 95% CI: 1.12–1.80). No significant differences were observed in the length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.75 days; 95% CI: -1.17 to 2.68) or hospital stay (MD -2.51 days; 95% CI: -10.13 to 5.12), or in the adverse events (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.60–1.12).</p> Conclusion <p>Continuous infusion of β-lactams could reduce hospital mortality and increase the clinical cure rate in critically ill patients, although its effect on overall mortality, hospital stay, and adverse events remains uncertain. PROSPERO number: CRD42024613938.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月26日

查看全文
  • David A. Tejada,
  • Hazel C. García,
  • Eduardo Tomás-Alvarado,
  • Judith Yangali-Vicente,
  • Oriana Rivera-Lozada,
  • Joshuan J. Barboza

摘要

Objective

To assess whether continuous infusion of β-lactam antibiotics improves clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

Results

Eleven studies involving 9,166 patients were analyzed, comparing continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in sepsis or septic shock. There was no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88–1.01) or ICU mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88–1.01). Continuous infusion was associated with lower hospital mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85–0.99), higher survival at the end of the study (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02–1.07), and higher clinical cure rate (RR 1.42; 95% CI: 1.12–1.80). No significant differences were observed in the length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.75 days; 95% CI: -1.17 to 2.68) or hospital stay (MD -2.51 days; 95% CI: -10.13 to 5.12), or in the adverse events (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.60–1.12).

Conclusion

Continuous infusion of β-lactams could reduce hospital mortality and increase the clinical cure rate in critically ill patients, although its effect on overall mortality, hospital stay, and adverse events remains uncertain. PROSPERO number: CRD42024613938.