通过呼吸道输送预防性抗生素以减少呼吸机相关肺炎:系统综述、网络 Meta 分析和随机对照试验的序列分析》。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006323
Jie Li, Shan Lyu, Jian Luo, Ping Liu, Fai A Albuainain, Omar A Alamoudi, Violaine Rochette, Stephan Ehrmann
{"title":"通过呼吸道输送预防性抗生素以减少呼吸机相关肺炎:系统综述、网络 Meta 分析和随机对照试验的序列分析》。","authors":"Jie Li, Shan Lyu, Jian Luo, Ping Liu, Fai A Albuainain, Omar A Alamoudi, Violaine Rochette, Stephan Ehrmann","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published in English up to October 25, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Adult patients with mechanical ventilation of over 48 h and receiving inhaled or instilled antibiotics (with control group) to prevent VAP were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two independent groups screened studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty/quality of the evidence. Results of a random-effects model were reported for overall and predefined subgroup meta-analyses. The analysis was primarily conducted on randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Seven RCTs with 1445 patients were included, of which six involving 1283 patients used nebulizers to deliver antibiotics. No obvious risk of bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. Compared with control group, prophylactic antibiotics delivery via the respiratory tract significantly reduced the risk of VAP (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.89]), particularly in subgroups where aminoglycosides (RR, 0.67 [0.47-0.97]) or nebulization (RR, 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) were used as opposed to other antibiotics (ceftazidime and colistin) or intratracheal instillation. No significant differences were observed in mortality, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of systemic antibiotics, need for tracheostomy, and adverse events between the two groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adult patients with mechanical ventilation for over 48 h, prophylactic antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract reduced the risk of VAP, particularly for those treated with nebulized aminoglycosides.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1612-1623"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prophylactic Antibiotics Delivered Via the Respiratory Tract to Reduce Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Jie Li, Shan Lyu, Jian Luo, Ping Liu, Fai A Albuainain, Omar A Alamoudi, Violaine Rochette, Stephan Ehrmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published in English up to October 25, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Adult patients with mechanical ventilation of over 48 h and receiving inhaled or instilled antibiotics (with control group) to prevent VAP were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two independent groups screened studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty/quality of the evidence. Results of a random-effects model were reported for overall and predefined subgroup meta-analyses. The analysis was primarily conducted on randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Seven RCTs with 1445 patients were included, of which six involving 1283 patients used nebulizers to deliver antibiotics. No obvious risk of bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. Compared with control group, prophylactic antibiotics delivery via the respiratory tract significantly reduced the risk of VAP (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.89]), particularly in subgroups where aminoglycosides (RR, 0.67 [0.47-0.97]) or nebulization (RR, 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) were used as opposed to other antibiotics (ceftazidime and colistin) or intratracheal instillation. No significant differences were observed in mortality, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of systemic antibiotics, need for tracheostomy, and adverse events between the two groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adult patients with mechanical ventilation for over 48 h, prophylactic antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract reduced the risk of VAP, particularly for those treated with nebulized aminoglycosides.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1612-1623\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006323\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006323","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估经呼吸道输送抗生素对预防呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的效果:评估经呼吸道给药的抗生素在预防呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)方面的效果:我们检索了PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov截至2023年10月25日发表的英文研究:纳入机械通气时间超过 48 小时、接受吸入或灌注抗生素(含对照组)以预防 VAP 的成人患者:两个独立小组筛选研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。采用 "建议分级评估、制定和评价 "法对证据的确定性/质量进行评估。报告了总体和预定义亚组荟萃分析的随机效应模型结果。分析主要针对随机对照试验,敏感性分析则采用观察性研究:共纳入了 7 项随机对照试验,涉及 1445 名患者,其中 6 项试验使用雾化器给药抗生素,涉及 1283 名患者。在主要结果方面,所纳入的研究性临床试验未发现明显的偏倚风险。与对照组相比,通过呼吸道给予预防性抗生素可显著降低 VAP 风险(风险比 [RR],0.69 [95% CI,0.53-0.89]),尤其是在使用氨基糖苷类(RR,0.67 [0.47-0.97])或雾化吸入(RR,0.64 [0.49-0.83])而非其他抗生素(头孢他啶和可乐定)或气管内灌注的亚组。两组患者在死亡率、机械通气时间、重症监护室和住院时间、全身使用抗生素时间、气管造口术需求和不良事件方面均无明显差异。结果在敏感性分析中得到了证实:结论:对于机械通气时间超过 48 小时的成人患者,通过呼吸道给予预防性抗生素可降低发生 VAP 的风险,尤其是那些接受雾化氨基糖苷类药物治疗的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prophylactic Antibiotics Delivered Via the Respiratory Tract to Reduce Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objectives: To assess the effects of antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

Data sources: We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published in English up to October 25, 2023.

Study selection: Adult patients with mechanical ventilation of over 48 h and receiving inhaled or instilled antibiotics (with control group) to prevent VAP were included.

Data extraction: Two independent groups screened studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty/quality of the evidence. Results of a random-effects model were reported for overall and predefined subgroup meta-analyses. The analysis was primarily conducted on randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.

Data synthesis: Seven RCTs with 1445 patients were included, of which six involving 1283 patients used nebulizers to deliver antibiotics. No obvious risk of bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. Compared with control group, prophylactic antibiotics delivery via the respiratory tract significantly reduced the risk of VAP (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.89]), particularly in subgroups where aminoglycosides (RR, 0.67 [0.47-0.97]) or nebulization (RR, 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) were used as opposed to other antibiotics (ceftazidime and colistin) or intratracheal instillation. No significant differences were observed in mortality, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of systemic antibiotics, need for tracheostomy, and adverse events between the two groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: In adult patients with mechanical ventilation for over 48 h, prophylactic antibiotics delivered via the respiratory tract reduced the risk of VAP, particularly for those treated with nebulized aminoglycosides.

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
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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