Evidence Hub

Effect of nebulised inhalation of antibiotics on preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiang Yuan, Yu-Ning Feng, Jun Wan, Sen Zhang, Qingyu Bao, Xin Liu, Yihong Shen, Yongjie Deng et al.

BMJ Open, 2025

1,160 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether prophylactic nebulised antibiotic inhalation reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation. Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 1 January 2024 without language restrictions. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic nebulised antibiotics with placebo or no treatment in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate relative risks (RRs) for VAP and secondary outcomes. Results Of the 2663 studies screened, four were deemed suitable for analysis, involving a total of 1160 patients (574 receiving prophylactic antibiotics via nebulised inhalation). Nebulised antibiotics reduced the incidence of VAP compared with control (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93, I²=38%, low-certainty). There were no statistically significant differences in ICU mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, I²=0%, low-certainty, moderate-certainty) or hospital mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.11, I²=0%, moderate-certainty). Risk of bias varied across studies, with one trial assessed as high risk, one with some…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,160 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