Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorA. Roberts, Jasonen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoots, Roben_US
dc.contributor.authorM. Rickard, Claireen_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorQuinn, Joen_US
dc.contributor.authorM. Roberts, Darrenen_US
dc.contributor.authorRichards, Brenten_US
dc.contributor.authorLipman, Jeffreyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:24:53Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:24:53Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.date.modified2009-11-13T06:37:19Z
dc.identifier.issn03057453en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jac/dkl478en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/26670
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom285en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto291en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume59en_US
dc.rights.retentionNen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode321009en_US
dc.titleIs continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot studyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2007
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record