Optimal infusion rate in antimicrobial therapy: explosion of evidence in the last five years

Clicks: 269
ID: 6121
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1,061 of 1,693 articles by views in Infection and drug resistance

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,693 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Optimal infusion rate in antimicrobial therapy: explosion of evidence in the last five years Ling-ling Zhu,1 Quan Zhou2 1VIP care ward, Division of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Pharmacy, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China Background: Sporadic studies in antimicrobial therapy have evaluated the effects of infusion rates on therapeutic and economic outcomes, and new findings may challenge the regular infusion regimen. Methods: Focusing on studies comparing the outcomes of different infusion regimens, the relevant literature was identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2013 to March 1, 2018. Papers were finally chosen using a PRISMA flowchart. Results: Antimicrobials with the superiority of prolonged infusion to standard infusion in terms of efficacy and safety include meropenem, doripenem, imipenem, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, linezolid, and vancomycin. The strategy of concomitantly reducing total daily dose and prolonging infusion time may cause treatment failure (eg, imipenem). Extended infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam has pharmacoeconomic advantage over standard infusion. Prolonged infusion of voriconazole is inferior to standard infusion because of lower efficacy caused by pharmacokinetic changes. Comparable outcomes following standard infusion and continuous infusion were observed with norvancomycin and nafcillin. Factors determining whether prolonged infusion has a benefit over standard infusion include MIC of bacterial pathogens, bacterial density, diagnosis, disease severity, total daily dose, and renal function. Conclusion: To maximally preserve the effectiveness of current antimicrobials, effective interventions should be implemented to enhance the application of optimal infusion strategies. For reducing nephrotoxicity, prolonged infusion of meropenem is better than conventional infusion in neonates with Gram-negative late-onset sepsis, and continuous infusion of vancomycin is superior to intermittent infusion. For increasing efficacy, prolonged or continuous infusion of time-dependent antimicrobials (eg, meropenem, doripenem, imipenem, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin/tazobactam, linezolid, and vancomycin) is an optimal choice. Nevertheless, such advantages may only be demonstrated in special clinical circumstances and special populations (eg, patients with a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score≥9, respiratory tract infections, urinary or intra-abdominal infections, or infections caused by less susceptible pathogens would benefit from prolonged infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam). Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship, efficacy, infection, infusion regimen, nursing time, safety, pharmacoeconomics
Reference Key
lingling2018optimalinfection Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ling-ling Zhu;Quan Zhou and
Journal Infection and drug resistance
Year 2018
DOI
10.2147/IDR.S167616
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.