dc.contributor.author | Roberts, Jason A | |
dc.contributor.author | Boots, Rob | |
dc.contributor.author | Rickard, Claire M | |
dc.contributor.author | Thomas, Peter | |
dc.contributor.author | Quinn, Jo | |
dc.contributor.author | Roberts, Darren M | |
dc.contributor.author | Richards, Brent | |
dc.contributor.author | Lipman, Jeffrey | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-03T15:24:53Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-05-03T15:24:53Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.modified | 2009-11-13T06:37:19Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0305-7453 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/jac/dkl478 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/26670 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Yes | |
dc.description.publicationstatus | Yes | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | Oxford University Press | |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | |
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublication | N | |
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom | 285 | |
dc.relation.ispartofpageto | 291 | |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 2 | |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy | |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 59 | |
dc.rights.retention | N | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Microbiology | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Medical Microbiology | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 0605 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 1108 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 1115 | |
dc.title | Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.type.description | C1 - Articles | |
dc.type.code | C - Journal Articles | |
gro.date.issued | 2007 | |
gro.hasfulltext | No Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | Rickard, Claire | |
gro.griffith.author | Richards, Brent V. | |