4.6 Article

Prolonged Infusion of β-Lactams Decreases Mortality in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective before-and-after Study

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10060687

关键词

prolonged infusion; beta-lactams; septic shock; mortality; antibiotic therapy; critical care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prolonged infusion of beta-lactams significantly reduces mortality in patients with septic shock, decreases the duration of invasive ventilation, and leads to a more pronounced reduction in SOFA scores within a 14-day period.
Septic shock substantially alters the pharmacokinetic properties of beta-lactams with a subsequently high risk of insufficiently low serum concentrations and treatment failure. Considering their pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) index, prolonged infusions (PI) of beta-lactams extend the time that the unbound fraction of the drug remains above the minimal inhibitory concentration MIC (ft (>MIC)) and may improve patient survival. The present study is a monocentric, retrospective before-and-after analysis of septic shock patients treated with beta-lactams. Patients of the years 2015-2017 received intermittent bolus application whereas patients of 2017-2020 received PI of beta-lactams. The primary outcome was mortality at day 30 and 90 after diagnosis of septic shock. Mortality rates in the PI group were significantly lower on day 30 (PI: 41%, n = 119/290 vs. IB: 54.8%, n = 68/114; p = 0.0097) and day 90 (PI: 47.9%, n = 139/290 vs. IB: 62.9%, n = 78/124; p = 0.005). After propensity-score matching, 30- and 90-day mortality remained lower for the PI group (-10%, p = 0.14). PI was further associated with a reduction in the duration of invasive ventilation and a stronger decrease in SOFA scores within a 14 day-observation period. PI of beta-lactams was associated with a significant reduction of mortality in patients with septic shock and may have beneficial effects on invasive ventilation and recovery from sepsis-related organ failure.

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