Background： The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous patients. n patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We compared the infusion...Background： The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous patients. n patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We compared the infusion of meropenem versus internaittent administration in such Methods： Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit （ICU） with severe sepsis or septic shock who received meropenem were randomly assigned to either the continuous （n = 25） or intermittent groups 01 = 25）. The continuous group received a loading dose of 0.5 g of meropenem lbllowed by a continuous infusion of 3 g/day： the intermittent group received an initial dose of 1.5 g lbllowed by 1 g lbr every 8 h. Clinical success, microbiological eradication, superinfection, ICU mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of meropenem treatment were assessed. Serial plasma meropenem concentrations tbr the first and third dosing periods （steady state） were also measured. Results： Clinical success was similar in both the continuous （64%） and intermittent （56%） groups （P = 0.564）： the rates of microbiological eradication and superinfection （81.8% vs. 66.7% [P = 0.255] and 4% vs. 16% [P 0.157], respectively） showed improvement in the continuous group. The duration of meropenem treatment was significantly shorter in the continuous group （7.6 vs. 9.4 days; P = 0.035）, where a better steady-state concentration was also achieved. Peak and trough concentrations were significantly different between the continuous and intermittent groups both in the first （Cmax： 19.8 mg/L vs. 51.8 mg/L, P = 0.000; Cmin： 11.2 mg/L vs. 0.5 nag/L, P = 0.000） and third dosing periods （Cmax： 12.5 mg/L vs. 46.4 rag/L, P = 0.000; Cmin： 11.4 mg/L vs. 0.6 rag/L, P = 0.000）. For medium-susceptibility pathogens, continuous inthsion concentrations above the minimal inhibitory concentration were 100%, which was better than that in the intermittent group- Conclusions： Continuous infusion of meropenem provides significantly shorter treatment duration and a tendency for superior bacteriological efficacy than intermittent administration. Continuous inthsion may be more optimal against imermediate-susceptibility pathogens.展开更多
文摘Background： The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered pharmacokinetic, clinical, and bacteriological efficacies of continuous patients. n patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We compared the infusion of meropenem versus internaittent administration in such Methods： Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit （ICU） with severe sepsis or septic shock who received meropenem were randomly assigned to either the continuous （n = 25） or intermittent groups 01 = 25）. The continuous group received a loading dose of 0.5 g of meropenem lbllowed by a continuous infusion of 3 g/day： the intermittent group received an initial dose of 1.5 g lbllowed by 1 g lbr every 8 h. Clinical success, microbiological eradication, superinfection, ICU mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of meropenem treatment were assessed. Serial plasma meropenem concentrations tbr the first and third dosing periods （steady state） were also measured. Results： Clinical success was similar in both the continuous （64%） and intermittent （56%） groups （P = 0.564）： the rates of microbiological eradication and superinfection （81.8% vs. 66.7% [P = 0.255] and 4% vs. 16% [P 0.157], respectively） showed improvement in the continuous group. The duration of meropenem treatment was significantly shorter in the continuous group （7.6 vs. 9.4 days; P = 0.035）, where a better steady-state concentration was also achieved. Peak and trough concentrations were significantly different between the continuous and intermittent groups both in the first （Cmax： 19.8 mg/L vs. 51.8 mg/L, P = 0.000; Cmin： 11.2 mg/L vs. 0.5 nag/L, P = 0.000） and third dosing periods （Cmax： 12.5 mg/L vs. 46.4 rag/L, P = 0.000; Cmin： 11.4 mg/L vs. 0.6 rag/L, P = 0.000）. For medium-susceptibility pathogens, continuous inthsion concentrations above the minimal inhibitory concentration were 100%, which was better than that in the intermittent group- Conclusions： Continuous infusion of meropenem provides significantly shorter treatment duration and a tendency for superior bacteriological efficacy than intermittent administration. Continuous inthsion may be more optimal against imermediate-susceptibility pathogens.
