Short- versus long-course antibiotic therapy in mechanically ventilated sepsis patients with pneumonia: a real-world cohort analysis

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Clinics Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-11 DOI:10.1016/j.clinsp.2026.100932
Bin Wang , Shuiqing Gui , Jiang Mei , Zhiye Zou
{"title":"Short- versus long-course antibiotic therapy in mechanically ventilated sepsis patients with pneumonia: a real-world cohort analysis","authors":"Bin Wang ,&nbsp;Shuiqing Gui ,&nbsp;Jiang Mei ,&nbsp;Zhiye Zou","doi":"10.1016/j.clinsp.2026.100932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare outcomes of short-course versus longer-course antibiotic regimens in mechanically ventilated adult patients with sepsis due to pneumonia.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The authors performed a retrospective cohort study using the MIMIC-IV database (2008–2022), identifying 2590 adults meeting Sepsis-3 criteria with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were stratified by antibiotic duration (short: 2‒7 days; long: 8‒14 days). Demographics, comorbidities, severity (SOFA score, PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio), and microbiology were extracted. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The authors used Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and subgroup analyses to assess the effect of treatment duration.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study found that overall 90-day mortality did not differ significantly (short-course ∼41.3% vs. long-course ∼41.2%; <em>p</em> = 0.98). Subgroup analyses indicated that in patients &gt; 65-years, those with severe hypoxemia (low PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub>), on RRT, or infected with Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, shorter therapy was associated with higher mortality rates (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). Conversely, younger or less severely ill patients showed no significant effect of duration. These findings may reflect residual confounding.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this observational cohort, shorter antibiotic courses were not associated with increased 90‑day mortality after adjustment. Given potential confounding and limited recurrence data, subgroup signals are hypothesis‑generating and require confirmation in randomized trials.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10472,"journal":{"name":"Clinics","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 100932"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1807593226000736","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare outcomes of short-course versus longer-course antibiotic regimens in mechanically ventilated adult patients with sepsis due to pneumonia.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study using the MIMIC-IV database (2008–2022), identifying 2590 adults meeting Sepsis-3 criteria with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were stratified by antibiotic duration (short: 2‒7 days; long: 8‒14 days). Demographics, comorbidities, severity (SOFA score, PaO2/FiO2 ratio), and microbiology were extracted. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The authors used Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and subgroup analyses to assess the effect of treatment duration.

Results

The study found that overall 90-day mortality did not differ significantly (short-course ∼41.3% vs. long-course ∼41.2%; p = 0.98). Subgroup analyses indicated that in patients > 65-years, those with severe hypoxemia (low PaO2/FiO2), on RRT, or infected with Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, shorter therapy was associated with higher mortality rates (p < 0.05). Conversely, younger or less severely ill patients showed no significant effect of duration. These findings may reflect residual confounding.

Conclusions

In this observational cohort, shorter antibiotic courses were not associated with increased 90‑day mortality after adjustment. Given potential confounding and limited recurrence data, subgroup signals are hypothesis‑generating and require confirmation in randomized trials.
机械通气脓毒症合并肺炎患者的短期与长期抗生素治疗:一项真实世界队列分析
目的比较成人肺炎脓毒症机械通气患者短疗程与长疗程抗生素治疗的疗效。方法:作者使用MIMIC-IV数据库(2008-2022)进行了一项回顾性队列研究,确定了2590名符合败血症-3标准的成人,初步诊断为需要有创机械通气的肺炎。患者按抗生素使用时间分层(短:2-7天,长:8-14天)。提取人口统计学、合并症、严重程度(SOFA评分、PaO2/FiO2比率)和微生物学。主要终点为90天全因死亡率。作者采用Kaplan-Meier分析、多变量Cox比例风险模型和亚组分析来评估治疗时间的影响。研究发现总体90天死亡率无显著差异(短期~ 41.3% vs长期~ 41.2%;p = 0.98)。亚组分析表明,在65岁、严重低氧血症(低PaO2/FiO2)、RRT或感染金黄色葡萄球菌或铜绿假单胞菌的患者中,较短的治疗时间与较高的死亡率相关(p < 0.05)。相反,年龄较小或病情较轻的患者的持续时间没有显着影响。这些发现可能反映了残留的混杂。结论:在这个观察性队列中,较短的抗生素疗程与调整后90天死亡率的增加无关。考虑到潜在的混淆和有限的复发数据,亚组信号是假设产生的,需要在随机试验中得到证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinics
Clinics 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
129
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: CLINICS is an electronic journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles in continuous flow, of interest to clinicians and researchers in the medical sciences. CLINICS complies with the policies of funding agencies which request or require deposition of the published articles that they fund into publicly available databases. CLINICS supports the position of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书