4.6 Article

Early-Onset Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Randomized Clinical Trial: Comparison of 8 versus 15 Days of Antibiotic Treatment

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041290

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health (Programme hospitalier de recherche clinique)
  2. SRLF (Societe de Reanimation de Langue Francaise)
  3. Glaxo and Beecham Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The optimal treatment duration for ventilator-associated pneumonia is based on one study dealing with late-onset of the condition. Shortening the length of antibiotic treatment remains a major prevention factor for the emergence of multiresistant bacteria. Objective: To demonstrate that 2 different antibiotic treatment durations (8 versus 15 days) are equivalent in terms of clinical cure for early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia. Methods: Randomized, prospective, open, multicenter trial carried out from 1998 to 2002. Measurements: The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate at day 21. The mortality rate was evaluated on days 21 and 90. Results: 225 patients were included in 13 centers. 191 (84.9%) patients were cured: 92 out of 109 (84.4%) in the 15 day cohort and 99 out of 116 (85.3%) in the 8 day cohort (difference = 0.9%, odds ratio = 0.929). 95% two-sided confidence intervals for difference and odds ratio were [28.4% to 10.3%] and [0.448 to 1.928] respectively. Taking into account the limits of equivalence (10% for difference and 2.25 for odds ratio), the objective of demonstrative equivalence between the 2 treatment durations was fulfilled. Although the rate of secondary infection was greater in the 8 day than the 15 day cohort, the number of days of antibiotic treatment remained lower in the 8 day cohort. There was no difference in mortality rate between the 2 groups on days 21 and 90. Conclusion: Our results suggest that an 8-day course of antibiotic therapy is safe for early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据