危重病人肠内与静脉注射抗生素:一项初步研究

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Dayana dos Santos Oliveira , Julia Vitória da Rocha , Juliano Gasparetto , Carolina Hikari Yamada , Joao Paulo Telles , Felipe Francisco Tuon
{"title":"危重病人肠内与静脉注射抗生素:一项初步研究","authors":"Dayana dos Santos Oliveira ,&nbsp;Julia Vitória da Rocha ,&nbsp;Juliano Gasparetto ,&nbsp;Carolina Hikari Yamada ,&nbsp;Joao Paulo Telles ,&nbsp;Felipe Francisco Tuon","doi":"10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>While there are valid concerns regarding the use of Enteral Antibiotics (EN) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the evidence opposing this practice has not been thoroughly evaluated in prior research.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the transition from sequential Intravenous (IV) antibiotics to EN antibiotics in critically ill patients with infections.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial involving patients with infections who received antibiotic therapy. The study compared sequential IV antibiotic treatment to EN therapy in patients who continued standard IV therapy in the intensive care unit. Primary outcome measures included mortality and clinical improvement assessed on days 3, 5, and 10. Secondary outcomes encompassed hospital and ICU length of stay, costs, and evaluation of microbiological failure.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of67 patients were included in the EN group and 60 patients in the IV group. Most patients were classified as infected (66.1 %), with 33.1 % diagnosed with sepsis. In-hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, with 31 % in the EN group and 30 % in the IV group. Clinical outcomes assessed on days 3, 5, and 10 showed no significant differences between the groups. Among the 67 patients in the EN group, 7 (10.5 %) required a return to intravenous antibiotic therapy. Notably, drug costs in the IV group increased by 207 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This is the first controlled and randomized study to evaluate the oral/enteral route of antibiotic administration in the ICU. The findings indicate no significant differences in clinical outcomes or survival rates between the two groups, while demonstrating reduced costs and comparable safety with EN antibiotics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56327,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":"29 4","pages":"Article 104538"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enteral versus intravenous antibiotics for critically ill patients: A pilot study\",\"authors\":\"Dayana dos Santos Oliveira ,&nbsp;Julia Vitória da Rocha ,&nbsp;Juliano Gasparetto ,&nbsp;Carolina Hikari Yamada ,&nbsp;Joao Paulo Telles ,&nbsp;Felipe Francisco Tuon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjid.2025.104538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>While there are valid concerns regarding the use of Enteral Antibiotics (EN) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the evidence opposing this practice has not been thoroughly evaluated in prior research.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the transition from sequential Intravenous (IV) antibiotics to EN antibiotics in critically ill patients with infections.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial involving patients with infections who received antibiotic therapy. The study compared sequential IV antibiotic treatment to EN therapy in patients who continued standard IV therapy in the intensive care unit. Primary outcome measures included mortality and clinical improvement assessed on days 3, 5, and 10. Secondary outcomes encompassed hospital and ICU length of stay, costs, and evaluation of microbiological failure.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of67 patients were included in the EN group and 60 patients in the IV group. Most patients were classified as infected (66.1 %), with 33.1 % diagnosed with sepsis. In-hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, with 31 % in the EN group and 30 % in the IV group. Clinical outcomes assessed on days 3, 5, and 10 showed no significant differences between the groups. Among the 67 patients in the EN group, 7 (10.5 %) required a return to intravenous antibiotic therapy. Notably, drug costs in the IV group increased by 207 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This is the first controlled and randomized study to evaluate the oral/enteral route of antibiotic administration in the ICU. The findings indicate no significant differences in clinical outcomes or survival rates between the two groups, while demonstrating reduced costs and comparable safety with EN antibiotics.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 104538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413867025000418\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413867025000418","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然对在重症监护病房(ICU)使用肠内抗生素(EN)存在合理的担忧,但反对这种做法的证据尚未在先前的研究中得到彻底评估。目的探讨重症感染患者从序贯静脉(IV)抗生素向EN抗生素的过渡。方法:这是一项前瞻性、多中心、随机、非盲临床试验,涉及接受抗生素治疗的感染患者。该研究比较了在重症监护病房继续标准静脉治疗的患者的序贯静脉抗生素治疗和EN治疗。主要结局指标包括在第3、5和10天评估的死亡率和临床改善。次要结局包括住院和ICU住院时间、费用和微生物失败的评估。结果EN组67例,IV组60例。大多数患者为感染(66.1%),其中33.1%诊断为败血症。两组的住院死亡率相当,EN组为31%,静脉注射组为30%。在第3、5和10天评估的临床结果显示,两组之间没有显著差异。在EN组的67例患者中,7例(10.5%)需要恢复静脉抗生素治疗。值得注意的是,静脉注射组的药物费用增加了207%。结论本研究是首个评估ICU患者口服/肠内给药方式的随机对照研究。研究结果表明,两组之间的临床结果或生存率无显著差异,同时显示EN抗生素的成本降低,安全性相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enteral versus intravenous antibiotics for critically ill patients: A pilot study

Background

While there are valid concerns regarding the use of Enteral Antibiotics (EN) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the evidence opposing this practice has not been thoroughly evaluated in prior research.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the transition from sequential Intravenous (IV) antibiotics to EN antibiotics in critically ill patients with infections.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, unblinded clinical trial involving patients with infections who received antibiotic therapy. The study compared sequential IV antibiotic treatment to EN therapy in patients who continued standard IV therapy in the intensive care unit. Primary outcome measures included mortality and clinical improvement assessed on days 3, 5, and 10. Secondary outcomes encompassed hospital and ICU length of stay, costs, and evaluation of microbiological failure.

Results

A total of67 patients were included in the EN group and 60 patients in the IV group. Most patients were classified as infected (66.1 %), with 33.1 % diagnosed with sepsis. In-hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, with 31 % in the EN group and 30 % in the IV group. Clinical outcomes assessed on days 3, 5, and 10 showed no significant differences between the groups. Among the 67 patients in the EN group, 7 (10.5 %) required a return to intravenous antibiotic therapy. Notably, drug costs in the IV group increased by 207 %.

Conclusion

This is the first controlled and randomized study to evaluate the oral/enteral route of antibiotic administration in the ICU. The findings indicate no significant differences in clinical outcomes or survival rates between the two groups, while demonstrating reduced costs and comparable safety with EN antibiotics.
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
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
925
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases is the official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI). It aims to publish relevant articles in the broadest sense on all aspects of microbiology, infectious diseases and immune response to infectious agents. The BJID is a bimonthly publication and one of the most influential journals in its field in Brazil and Latin America with a high impact factor, since its inception it has garnered a growing share of the publishing market.
×
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