4.7 Article

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures for Establishing the Microbial Etiology of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia for Clinical Trials: The Pros for Quantitative Cultures

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 S88-S92

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/653054

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nektar-Bayer
  2. Pfizer
  3. Wyeth
  4. Johnson Johnson
  5. Janssen-Cilag
  6. Astellas
  7. Brahms
  8. Bayer
  9. Biomerieux
  10. MSD
  11. US Food and Drug Administration
  12. Infectious Diseases Society of America
  13. American College of Chest Physicians
  14. American Thoracic Society
  15. Society of Critical Care Medicine
  16. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
  17. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
  18. Forest Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Use of only clinical criteria for enrolling patients in clinical trials leads to inclusion of many patients who have no pulmonary infection, which can make the evaluation of new treatment modalities difficult. Quantitative cultures of specimens obtained using bronchoscopic or nonbronchoscopic techniques, such as bronchoalveolar lavage and/or protected specimen brush, are much more specific and could improve identification of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Microscopic examination of distal respiratory secretions with use of Gram staining permits randomizing only patients with a high probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia and, thus, avoids the potential bias that can result from secondary exclusions. Invasive techniques also offer a sensitive and specific approach for identifying the responsible microorganisms, which is particularly important when evaluating antimicrobial agents for which bactericidal activity can be highly variable from one pathogen to another. Follow-up evaluation of the infected site with use of the same techniques permits determination of the pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic parameters of the new agents and their microbiological efficacy, compared with current antibiotics.

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