头孢曲松静脉推注和捎带给药对败血症死亡率的影响

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sun Young Lim MD, MSc , Sumin Baek MD , You Hwan Jo MD, PhD , Jae Hyuk Lee MD, PhD , Young Woo Um MD, MSc , Hee Eun Kim MD , Dongkwan Han MD
{"title":"头孢曲松静脉推注和捎带给药对败血症死亡率的影响","authors":"Sun Young Lim MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Sumin Baek MD ,&nbsp;You Hwan Jo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jae Hyuk Lee MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Young Woo Um MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Hee Eun Kim MD ,&nbsp;Dongkwan Han MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.12.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the administration methods of ceftriaxone in emergency departments (EDs), resulting in the reliance on individual institutional protocols for decision-making.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study was performed to compare the effects of administering ceftriaxone via intravenous push (IVP) and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) on 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective study of patients aged 18 years or older with sepsis or septic shock who visited an ED and were treated with ceftriaxone as an initial antibiotic between March 2010 and February 2019. Patients were divided into the IVP group and the IVPB group based on the administration method. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between antibiotic administration methods and 28-day mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the study period, a total of 939 patients were included in the final analysis, and the overall mortality rate was 12.2%. The antibiotic administration time was significantly lower in the IVP group than in the IVPB group, and the rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h and within 3 h were higher in the IVP group than in the IVPB group (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.65).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>IVP administration of ceftriaxone reduced the time of antibiotic administration compared with IVPB, but there was no difference in 28-day mortality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467923005954/pdfft?md5=cd00b772c035a3f750704d9e29257d4a&pid=1-s2.0-S0736467923005954-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Intravenous Push and Piggyback Administration of Ceftriaxone on Mortality in Sepsis\",\"authors\":\"Sun Young Lim MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Sumin Baek MD ,&nbsp;You Hwan Jo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jae Hyuk Lee MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Young Woo Um MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Hee Eun Kim MD ,&nbsp;Dongkwan Han MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.12.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the administration methods of ceftriaxone in emergency departments (EDs), resulting in the reliance on individual institutional protocols for decision-making.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study was performed to compare the effects of administering ceftriaxone via intravenous push (IVP) and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) on 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective study of patients aged 18 years or older with sepsis or septic shock who visited an ED and were treated with ceftriaxone as an initial antibiotic between March 2010 and February 2019. Patients were divided into the IVP group and the IVPB group based on the administration method. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between antibiotic administration methods and 28-day mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the study period, a total of 939 patients were included in the final analysis, and the overall mortality rate was 12.2%. The antibiotic administration time was significantly lower in the IVP group than in the IVPB group, and the rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h and within 3 h were higher in the IVP group than in the IVPB group (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.65).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>IVP administration of ceftriaxone reduced the time of antibiotic administration compared with IVPB, but there was no difference in 28-day mortality.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467923005954/pdfft?md5=cd00b772c035a3f750704d9e29257d4a&pid=1-s2.0-S0736467923005954-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467923005954\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467923005954","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急诊科头孢曲松的给药方法缺乏循证指南:急诊科(ED)中头孢曲松的给药方法缺乏循证指南,因此只能依靠个别机构的方案进行决策:本研究旨在比较头孢曲松静脉推注(IVP)和静脉回输(IVPB)对脓毒症患者 28 天死亡率的影响:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是2010年3月至2019年2月期间在急诊室就诊并接受头孢曲松作为初始抗生素治疗的18岁或18岁以上脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者。根据给药方法将患者分为 IVP 组和 IVPB 组。主要结果为28天死亡率,并进行了多变量Cox比例危险回归分析,以评估抗生素给药方法与28天死亡率之间的关系:研究期间,共有 939 名患者纳入最终分析,总死亡率为 12.2%。IVP组的抗生素给药时间明显低于IVPB组,IVP组1小时内和3小时内给药率高于IVPB组(P <0.05)。然而,两组患者的 28 天死亡率无明显差异(危险比为 1.07,95% 置信区间为 0.69-1.65):结论:与 IVPB 相比,IVP 给予头孢曲松缩短了抗生素用药时间,但 28 天死亡率没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of Intravenous Push and Piggyback Administration of Ceftriaxone on Mortality in Sepsis

Background

There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the administration methods of ceftriaxone in emergency departments (EDs), resulting in the reliance on individual institutional protocols for decision-making.

Objective

This study was performed to compare the effects of administering ceftriaxone via intravenous push (IVP) and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) on 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients aged 18 years or older with sepsis or septic shock who visited an ED and were treated with ceftriaxone as an initial antibiotic between March 2010 and February 2019. Patients were divided into the IVP group and the IVPB group based on the administration method. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between antibiotic administration methods and 28-day mortality.

Results

During the study period, a total of 939 patients were included in the final analysis, and the overall mortality rate was 12.2%. The antibiotic administration time was significantly lower in the IVP group than in the IVPB group, and the rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h and within 3 h were higher in the IVP group than in the IVPB group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.65).

Conclusions

IVP administration of ceftriaxone reduced the time of antibiotic administration compared with IVPB, but there was no difference in 28-day mortality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信