Efficacy and safety of extended or continuous intravenous infusion of carbapenemes against severe infection: a systematic review
Can CHEN,Ying-qiu YING,Ying-ying YAN,Suo-di ZHAI
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13286/j.cnki.chinhosppharmacyj.2017.16.17
2017-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE To systematically review the efficacy and safety of extended or continuous intravenous infusion (EI/ CI) versus short-term intravenous infusion (STI) of carbapenemes in adult patients with severe infection.METHODS Databases were electronically searched,including the Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMbase,VIP,CNKI and Wanfang Data,to collect random controlled trials (RCTs) about EI/CI versus STI of carbapenemes against severe infection.Two reviewers independently screened literature,extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.Then,meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.RESULTS A total of 20 RCTs involving 1 695 patients were included.The results of Meta-analysis showed that,compared with the STI group,the EI/CI could significantly improve the clinical effective rate [RR =1.27,95 % CI (1.18,1.36),P<0.000 01] and bacterial eradication rate [RR=1.28,95%CI (1.18,1.39),P<0.000 01],and the CI was superior to the EI in bacterial eradication;compared with STI,emergence of drug resistant strains was significantly reduced [RR =0.30,95% CI (0.14,0.65),P =0.002];subgroup analysis revealed that both CI [MD =-6.08,95% CI (-6.68,-5.48),P<0.000 01] and EI [MD=-3.06,95%CI (-3.56,-2.56),P<0.000 01] can significantly shorten ICU stay time;the carbapenemes' treatment course of EI/CI was significantly shorter than STI [MD =-0.76,95% CI (-1.29,-0.22),P-0.005];there were no significant differences in incidence of adverse reactions [RR =0.98,95%CI (0.70,1.36),P =0.89];for respiratory infection,compared with CI/EI,the STI had better clinical curative effect,and did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.CONCLUSION Compared with STI of carbapenemes,EI/CI can improve efficacy in the treatment of severe infections with similar safety.The conclusion still need to be further verified by more high quality studies.