Evidence Hub

Prognostic Impact of Early Appropriate Antimicrobial Therapy in Critically Ill Patients With Nosocomial Pneumonia Due to Gram-Negative Pathogens: A Multicenter Cohort Study

François Barbier, N. Buetti, C. Dupuis, C. Schwebel, É. Azoulay, L. Argaud, Yves Cohen, Vivien Hong Tuan Ha et al.

Critical Care Medicine, 2025

804 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether early appropriate antimicrobial therapy (EAAT) is associated with improved outcomes in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilated HAP (vHAP), or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) involving Gram-negative bacteria (GNB). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study based on prospectively collected data. SETTING: Thirty-two French ICUs (OutcomeRéa network). PATIENTS: All patients with a first HAP, vHAP, or VAP due to GNB during their ICU stay. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The relationship between EAAT and day 28 all-cause mortality (primary endpoint) was explored through Cox proportional-hazard models, with subgroup analyses according to pneumonia types, causative GNB, features of EAAT, and the occurrence of septic shock at pneumonia diagnosis. The course of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score values, the clinical cure rate at day 14, and the time to mechanical ventilation (MV) weaning and ICU discharge after pneumonia diagnosis were investigated as secondary endpoints. Among the 804 included patients, 495 (61.6%) received EAAT (single-drug, 25.4%; combination, 36.2%). Day 28 mortality was 32.6%. EAAT was not independently associated with this outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67–1.12). This result was confirmed in subgroup analyses as in a second model considering all episodes of pneumonia occurring during the ICU stay. EAAT was not associated with a faster decrease in…

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: 804 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