评估通过两种雾化器吸入可乐定对呼吸机相关肺炎的疗效:前瞻性随机试验

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Chung-Chi Huang, Tien-Pei Fang, Chieh-Mo Lin, Chien-Ming Chu, Hsuan-Ling Hsiao, Jui-Fang Liu, Hsin-Hsien Li, Li-Chung Chiu, Kuo-Chin Kao, Chin-Hsi Kuo, Shaw-Woei Leu, Hui-Ling Lin
{"title":"评估通过两种雾化器吸入可乐定对呼吸机相关肺炎的疗效:前瞻性随机试验","authors":"Chung-Chi Huang, Tien-Pei Fang, Chieh-Mo Lin, Chien-Ming Chu, Hsuan-Ling Hsiao, Jui-Fang Liu, Hsin-Hsien Li, Li-Chung Chiu, Kuo-Chin Kao, Chin-Hsi Kuo, Shaw-Woei Leu, Hui-Ling Lin","doi":"10.3390/antibiotics13111099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Backgroud:</b> This prospective randomized trial evaluated the clinical efficacy of inhaled colistin administered through two distinct nebulizer types, a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and a jet nebulizer (JN), in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. In addition, an in vitro model was used to determine the optimal delivery of colistin. <b>Method:</b> Thirty-two patients prescribed intravenous (IV) colistin inhalation were randomized to receive either a VMN (n = 17) or a JN (n = 15), then compared to the control group (IV alone) over a 7-to 10-day period. The primary endpoint was the clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS), and the secondary endpoints were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACE) score, and duration of ventilator use. <b>Results:</b> Results from in vitro testing demonstrated that VMN delivered a significantly higher colistin dose than JN (35.68 ± 3.55% vs. 23.56 ± 3.31%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) when positioned at the humidifier inlet. Compared to the IV alone group, the IV with inhalation group yielded significant improvements in CPIS, SOFA score, and APACHE score on day 7; nevertheless, clinical outcomes between the two nebulizers were statistically indistinguishable. <b>Conclusions:</b> In conclusion, although VMN delivers a higher dose in vitro, both nebulizers yielded comparable clinical outcomes. This study was registered at US Clinical Trial Registration (NCT04633317).</p>","PeriodicalId":54246,"journal":{"name":"Antibiotics-Basel","volume":"13 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Efficacy of Inhaled Colistin via Two Nebulizer Types in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Prospective Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Chung-Chi Huang, Tien-Pei Fang, Chieh-Mo Lin, Chien-Ming Chu, Hsuan-Ling Hsiao, Jui-Fang Liu, Hsin-Hsien Li, Li-Chung Chiu, Kuo-Chin Kao, Chin-Hsi Kuo, Shaw-Woei Leu, Hui-Ling Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/antibiotics13111099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Backgroud:</b> This prospective randomized trial evaluated the clinical efficacy of inhaled colistin administered through two distinct nebulizer types, a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and a jet nebulizer (JN), in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. In addition, an in vitro model was used to determine the optimal delivery of colistin. <b>Method:</b> Thirty-two patients prescribed intravenous (IV) colistin inhalation were randomized to receive either a VMN (n = 17) or a JN (n = 15), then compared to the control group (IV alone) over a 7-to 10-day period. The primary endpoint was the clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS), and the secondary endpoints were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACE) score, and duration of ventilator use. <b>Results:</b> Results from in vitro testing demonstrated that VMN delivered a significantly higher colistin dose than JN (35.68 ± 3.55% vs. 23.56 ± 3.31%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) when positioned at the humidifier inlet. Compared to the IV alone group, the IV with inhalation group yielded significant improvements in CPIS, SOFA score, and APACHE score on day 7; nevertheless, clinical outcomes between the two nebulizers were statistically indistinguishable. <b>Conclusions:</b> In conclusion, although VMN delivers a higher dose in vitro, both nebulizers yielded comparable clinical outcomes. This study was registered at US Clinical Trial Registration (NCT04633317).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antibiotics-Basel\",\"volume\":\"13 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11591489/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antibiotics-Basel\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13111099\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antibiotics-Basel","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13111099","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:这项前瞻性随机试验评估了通过两种不同类型的雾化器(振动网雾化器(VMN)和喷射雾化器(JN))吸入可乐定治疗由多重耐药菌引起的呼吸机相关肺炎的临床疗效。此外,还利用体外模型确定了可乐定的最佳给药方式。研究方法32名静脉注射(IV)可乐定的患者被随机分配接受VMN(17人)或JN(15人),然后在7到10天内与对照组(仅静脉注射)进行比较。主要终点是临床肺部感染评分(CPIS),次要终点是序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACE)评分以及呼吸机使用时间。结果体外测试结果表明,当 VMN 位于加湿器入口处时,其输送的可乐定剂量明显高于 JN(35.68 ± 3.55% vs. 23.56 ± 3.31%;p < 0.001)。与单纯静脉注射组相比,静脉注射加吸入组在第 7 天的 CPIS、SOFA 评分和 APACHE 评分均有显著改善;不过,两种雾化器的临床结果在统计学上没有差异。结论总之,虽然 VMN 的体外剂量更高,但两种雾化器的临床疗效相当。本研究已在美国临床试验注册中心注册(NCT04633317)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the Efficacy of Inhaled Colistin via Two Nebulizer Types in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Prospective Randomized Trial.

Backgroud: This prospective randomized trial evaluated the clinical efficacy of inhaled colistin administered through two distinct nebulizer types, a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and a jet nebulizer (JN), in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. In addition, an in vitro model was used to determine the optimal delivery of colistin. Method: Thirty-two patients prescribed intravenous (IV) colistin inhalation were randomized to receive either a VMN (n = 17) or a JN (n = 15), then compared to the control group (IV alone) over a 7-to 10-day period. The primary endpoint was the clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS), and the secondary endpoints were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACE) score, and duration of ventilator use. Results: Results from in vitro testing demonstrated that VMN delivered a significantly higher colistin dose than JN (35.68 ± 3.55% vs. 23.56 ± 3.31%; p < 0.001) when positioned at the humidifier inlet. Compared to the IV alone group, the IV with inhalation group yielded significant improvements in CPIS, SOFA score, and APACHE score on day 7; nevertheless, clinical outcomes between the two nebulizers were statistically indistinguishable. Conclusions: In conclusion, although VMN delivers a higher dose in vitro, both nebulizers yielded comparable clinical outcomes. This study was registered at US Clinical Trial Registration (NCT04633317).

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
Antibiotics-Basel
Antibiotics-Basel Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
14.60%
发文量
1547
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Antibiotics (ISSN 2079-6382) is an open access, peer reviewed journal on all aspects of antibiotics. Antibiotics is a multi-disciplinary journal encompassing the general fields of biochemistry, chemistry, genetics, microbiology and pharmacology. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. Therefore, there is no restriction on the length of papers.
×
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