呼吸机相关性肺炎:多长时间够长?

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Despoina Koulenti, Maria-Panagiota Almyroudi, Antonios Katsounas
{"title":"呼吸机相关性肺炎:多长时间够长?","authors":"Despoina Koulenti, Maria-Panagiota Almyroudi, Antonios Katsounas","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>To provide an updated overview of optimal antibiotic duration in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), integrating guideline recommendations, clinical evidence, and expert opinion.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>A randomized controlled trial, retrospective studies and meta-analyses support shorter (≤7-8-day) regimens for immunocompetent patients with VAP, reducing toxicity and, potentially, resistance development without compromising outcomes. However, while short-course regimens are increasingly supported, recent trials of newer agents often report durations >7 days, reflecting real-world challenges in resistant pathogens and trial design.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>VAP remains the leading healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs), related to worse outcomes and contributing substantially to antimicrobial use. Historically, prolonged antibiotic courses (≥10-14) were standard, particularly for cases involving multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) organisms. This review synthesizes current evidence supporting shorter course therapy for VAP (≤7-8 days), emphasizing the importance of clinical response and individualization. While guideline convergence on 7-8 days has grown, exceptions apply for specific pathogens (e.g., nonfermenters, MDR or XDR organisms), bacteremia, slow response, or structural lung disease. Biomarkers like procalcitonin may assist in select cases but lack VAP-specific validation. Regular reassessment is essential to balance efficacy with stewardship. Evidence gaps remain for immunocompromised patients and ultra-short regimens.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ventilator-associated pneumonia: how long is long enough?\",\"authors\":\"Despoina Koulenti, Maria-Panagiota Almyroudi, Antonios Katsounas\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>To provide an updated overview of optimal antibiotic duration in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), integrating guideline recommendations, clinical evidence, and expert opinion.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>A randomized controlled trial, retrospective studies and meta-analyses support shorter (≤7-8-day) regimens for immunocompetent patients with VAP, reducing toxicity and, potentially, resistance development without compromising outcomes. However, while short-course regimens are increasingly supported, recent trials of newer agents often report durations >7 days, reflecting real-world challenges in resistant pathogens and trial design.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>VAP remains the leading healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs), related to worse outcomes and contributing substantially to antimicrobial use. Historically, prolonged antibiotic courses (≥10-14) were standard, particularly for cases involving multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) organisms. This review synthesizes current evidence supporting shorter course therapy for VAP (≤7-8 days), emphasizing the importance of clinical response and individualization. While guideline convergence on 7-8 days has grown, exceptions apply for specific pathogens (e.g., nonfermenters, MDR or XDR organisms), bacteremia, slow response, or structural lung disease. Biomarkers like procalcitonin may assist in select cases but lack VAP-specific validation. Regular reassessment is essential to balance efficacy with stewardship. Evidence gaps remain for immunocompromised patients and ultra-short regimens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述的目的:综合指南建议、临床证据和专家意见,提供呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)最佳抗生素持续时间的最新概述。最近的发现:一项随机对照试验、回顾性研究和荟萃分析支持对免疫功能正常的VAP患者采用更短(≤7-8天)的治疗方案,减少毒性和潜在的耐药性发展,而不影响结果。然而,尽管越来越多的人支持短期治疗方案,但最近对新药物的试验通常报告持续时间为70 - 70天,这反映了耐药病原体和试验设计的现实挑战。总结:VAP仍然是重症监护病房(icu)中主要的卫生保健相关感染,与较差的结果相关,并在很大程度上促进了抗菌药物的使用。从历史上看,延长抗生素疗程(≥10-14)是标准的,特别是涉及多药耐药(MDR)或广泛耐药(XDR)微生物的病例。本综述综合了目前支持VAP短期治疗(≤7-8天)的证据,强调了临床反应和个体化的重要性。虽然7-8天的指南趋同程度有所提高,但特殊病原体(如非发酵菌、耐多药或广泛耐药微生物)、菌血症、反应缓慢或结构性肺病除外。生物标志物如降钙素原可能有助于某些病例,但缺乏vap特异性验证。定期重新评估是平衡效能与管理的必要条件。免疫功能低下患者和超短疗程的证据差距仍然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ventilator-associated pneumonia: how long is long enough?

Purpose of review: To provide an updated overview of optimal antibiotic duration in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), integrating guideline recommendations, clinical evidence, and expert opinion.

Recent findings: A randomized controlled trial, retrospective studies and meta-analyses support shorter (≤7-8-day) regimens for immunocompetent patients with VAP, reducing toxicity and, potentially, resistance development without compromising outcomes. However, while short-course regimens are increasingly supported, recent trials of newer agents often report durations >7 days, reflecting real-world challenges in resistant pathogens and trial design.

Summary: VAP remains the leading healthcare-associated infection in intensive care units (ICUs), related to worse outcomes and contributing substantially to antimicrobial use. Historically, prolonged antibiotic courses (≥10-14) were standard, particularly for cases involving multidrug-resistant (MDR) or extensively drug-resistant (XDR) organisms. This review synthesizes current evidence supporting shorter course therapy for VAP (≤7-8 days), emphasizing the importance of clinical response and individualization. While guideline convergence on 7-8 days has grown, exceptions apply for specific pathogens (e.g., nonfermenters, MDR or XDR organisms), bacteremia, slow response, or structural lung disease. Biomarkers like procalcitonin may assist in select cases but lack VAP-specific validation. Regular reassessment is essential to balance efficacy with stewardship. Evidence gaps remain for immunocompromised patients and ultra-short regimens.

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
Current Opinion in Critical Care
Current Opinion in Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Critical Care delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in critical care from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring thirteen key topics – including the respiratory system, neuroscience, trauma and infectious diseases – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.
×
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