4.7 Review

Short- vs Long-Duration Antibiotic Regimens for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

CHEST
卷 144, 期 6, 页码 1759-1767

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0076

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-vs long-duration antibiotic regimens for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short (7-8 days) with long (10-15 days) regimens were identified. Primary outcomes included mortality, antibiotic-free days, and clinical and microbiologic relapses. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of ICU stay. Results: All RCTs included mortality data, whereas data on relapse and antibiotic-free days were provided in three and two out of four RCTs, respectively. No difference in mortality was found between the compared arms (fixed effect model [FEM]: OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.84-1.72; P = .32). There was an increase in antibiotic-free days in favor of the short-course treatment with a pooled weighted mean difference of 3.40 days (random effects model: 95% CI, 1.43-5.37; P < .001). There was no difference in relapses between the compared arms, although a strong trend to lower relapses in the long-course treatment was observed (FEM: OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 0.99-2.83; P = .06). No difference was found between the two arms regarding the remaining outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Conclusions: Short-course treatment of VAP was associated with more antibiotic-free days. No difference was found regarding mortality and relapses; however, a strong trend for fewer relapses was observed in favor of the long-course treatment, being mostly driven by one study in which the observed relapses were probably more microbiologic than clinical. Additional research is required to elucidate the issue.

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