Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study
There are no files associated with this record.
| Title | Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study |
|---|---|
| Author | Roberts, Jason A.; Boots, Rob; Rickard, Claire; Thomas, Peter; Quinn, Jo; Roberts, Darren M.; Richards, Brent; Lipman, Jeffrey |
| Journal Name | Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy |
| Year Published | 2007 |
| Place of publication | United Kingdom |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Abstract | Objectives: To compare the clinical and bacteriological outcome of critically ill patients with sepsis treated by ceftriaxone administered as a once-a-day intermittent bolus dose or by 24 h continuous infusion. Patients and methods: We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled pilot study in 57 patients clinically diagnosed with sepsis (suspected/proven infection and systemic inflammatory response syndrome) in a tertiary level intensive care unit. Patients were randomized to receive 2 g of ceftriaxone administered by once-daily intermittent bolus dosing or by 24 h continuous infusion. Clinical and bacteriological outcomes were assessed by blinded clinicians. Results: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the study, 50 of whom fulfilled the a priori definition of treatment for 4 or more days. The infusion (n = 29) and bolus groups (n = 28) were similar in terms of demographics, although the median age of those receiving the infusion was younger. Intention-to-treat analysis found no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes for clinical response (P = 0.17), clinical cure [infusion n = 13/29 versus bolus n = 5/28; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.11–12.57; P = 0.06], bacteriological response (P = 0.41) and bacteriological cure (infusion n = 18/29 versus bolus 14/28; AOR = 1.64; 95% CI = 0.57–4.70; P = 0.52). However, logistic regression in patients that complied with the a priori definitions who received ceftriaxone by continuous infusion (AOR = 22.8; 95% CI = 2.24–232.3; P = 0.008) or patients with a low Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (AOR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.54–0.91; P = 0.008) were associated with an improved clinical outcome when age and Sepsis Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at time of study entry were controlled for. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests clinical and bacteriological advantages of continuous infusion of ceftriaxone over bolus administration in critically ill patients in patients requiring 4 or more days of treatment. This sets the scene for a large multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial to confirm these findings. |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Published | Yes |
| Alternative URI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl478 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue Number | 2 |
| Page from | 285 |
| Page to | 291 |
| ISSN | 0305-7453 |
| Date Accessioned | 2007-05-10 |
| Date Available | 2009-11-13T06:37:19Z |
| Language | en_AU |
| Research Centre | Griffith Health Institute; Centre for Health Practice Innovation |
| Faculty | Griffith Health Faculty |
| Subject | PRE2009-Intensive Care |
| URI | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/26670 |
| Publication Type | Journal Articles (Refereed Article) |
| Publication Type Code | c1x |
Please use this identifier to cite this record: http://hdl.handle.net/10072/26670
Griffith University copyright notice
Copyright in individual works within the repository belongs to their authors or publishers. You may make a print or digital copy of a work for your personal non-commercial use. All other rights are reserved, except for fair dealings or other user rights granted by the copyright laws of your country.
Back to top