Evidence Hub

Comparative analysis of treatment outcomes and risk factors associated with different combination antimicrobial regimens in patients with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia

Xu M, Liu M, Tang X, Wu X

Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026

142 participants

Abstract

Background: Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDRAB) pneumonia is a major cause of mortality in hospital-acquired infections due to extensive drug resistance and limited therapeutic options. Optimizing treatment and identifying mortality-related factors are urgently needed.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of different antibacterial regimens in MDRAB pneumonia and determine independent risk factors for 28-day all-cause mortality.

Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 142 MDRAB pneumonia patients from February 2022 to February 2025. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A, sulbactam-containing combinations (n = 63); Group B, polymyxins + tigecycline (n = 45); Group C, other regimens (n = 34). Outcomes included bacterial resistance patterns, 28-day mortality, dynamic PCT and CRP levels, APACHE II and SOFA scores, and lymphocyte subsets. Multivariate logistic regression identified mortality predictors.

Results: Group A showed the lowest resistance to cefoperazone/sulbactam (30.16%) and the highest sensitivity (71.43%, both P< 0.05). Group B had the highest tigecycline resistance (31.11%). The 28-day mortality rates were 39.68% (A), 60.00% (B), and 64.71% (C) (P = 0.028). Independent mortality predictors were APACHE II, SOFA, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio (all P< 0.01). On day 7, Group A had the lowest PCT, while Group C showed the smallest declines in PCT and CRP. Group A exhibited the highest CD4+/CD8+ ratio.

Conclusion: Sulbactam-based…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 142 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free