4.7 Article

Pilot Study of Aerosolised Plus Intravenous Vancomycin in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Pneumonia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9020476

关键词

mechanical ventilation; methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; intensive care unit; aerosolised vancomycin; pneumonia

资金

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital research grant [03-2011-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia in critically ill patients remains unsatisfactory. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of aerosolised vancomycin in addition to intravenous administration in this setting. This was a prospective, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >48 h in intensive care units (ICUs) were screened; those receiving intravenous vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia were enrolled. Patients received aerosolised vancomycin (250 mg every 12 h for five days) via a vibrating mesh nebuliser. The primary outcome was treatment success (clinical cure or improvement) at the conclusion of antibiotic treatment. Vancomycin concentrations were measured in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid according to administration time. Twenty patients were enrolled (median age 75 years and 13 (65%) men; 18 (90%) cases with nosocomial pneumonia). Thirteen patients (65%) showed clinical cure or improvement. Microbiological eradication of MRSA was confirmed in 14 patients (70%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30% and 35%, respectively. Maximum aerosolised vancomycin concentration was observed 4-5 h after nebulising (98.75 +/- 21.79 mcg/mL). No additional systemic adverse effects occurred following aerosol vancomycin treatment. Aerosolised vancomycin combination therapy may be an alternative treatment for patients with severe MRSA pneumonia receiving mechanical ventilation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01925066).

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

4.7
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