Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of conventional antimicrobial agents against carbapenem resistant non-carbapenem β-lactams susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in critically ill patients: a multicentre retrospective study

Wang SH, Chen WC, Chan MC, Yang KY, Sheu CC, Wu BR, Huang WH, Feng JY et al.

BMC infectious diseases, 2026

178 participants

Abstract

Background: Carbapenem resistant non-carbapenem β-lactam susceptible (CRBS) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is a unique phenotype of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA). While guidelines suggest using conventional β-lactams, clinical evidence supporting their effectiveness in critically ill patients remains limited. This study evaluated the associations of conventional antimicrobial agents with clinical outcomes in CRBS PA infections in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: This multicentre retrospective cohort study included 178 patients with CRPA-associated pneumonia or bloodstream infections, comprising 119 patients with CRBS PA and 59 patients with carbapenem-resistant non-carbapenem β-lactam resistant (CRBR) PA. Patient outcomes were compared between phenotypes. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the associations between specific antimicrobial agents and clinical outcomes in CRBS PA infections, using multivariable stepwise logistic regression analyses for in-hospital mortality, day-28 mortality, day-28 clinical failure, and day-28 microbiological eradication.

Results: The CRBS PA group demonstrated significantly lower clinical failure rates compared to the CRBR PA group (45.4% vs. 62.7%, p = 0.034), suggesting potential clinical relevance of this phenotype. In the multivariable analysis of CRBS PA infections, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam (OR: 0.52, p = 0.03) and ceftazidime (OR: 0.27, p = 0.01) was independently associated with lower in-hospital…

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: 178 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