4.7 Article

Imipenem, Meropenem, or Doripenem To Treat Patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 1372-1380

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02109-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. Janssen-Cilag

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Only limited data exist on Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) treated with imipenem, meropenem, or doripenem. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study in 169 patients who developed Pseudomonas aeruginosa VAP. Imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem MICs for Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were determined using Etests and compared according to the carbapenem received. Among the 169 isolates responsible for the first VAP episode, doripenem MICs were lower (P < 0.0001) than those of imipenem and meropenem (MIC(50)s, 0.25, 2, and 0.38, respectively); 61%, 64%, and 70% were susceptible to imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem, respectively (P was not statistically significant). Factors independently associated with carbapenem resistance were previous carbapenem use (within 15 days) and mechanical ventilation duration before VAP onset. Fifty-six (33%) patients had at least one VAP recurrence, and 56 (33%) died. Factors independently associated with an unfavorable outcome (recurrence or death) were a high day 7 sequential organ failure assessment score and mechanical ventilation dependency on day 7. Physicians freely prescribed a carbapenem to 88 patients: imipenem for 32, meropenem for 24, and doripenem for 32. The remaining 81 patients were treated with various antibiotics. Imipenem-, meropenem-, and doripenem-treated patients had similar VAP recurrence rates (41%, 25%, and 22%, respectively; P = 0.15) and mortality rates (47%, 25%, and 22%, respectively; P = 0.07). Carbapenem resistance emerged similarly among patients treated with any carbapenem. No carbapenem was superior to another for preventing carbapenem resistance emergence.

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