Evidence Hub

Preventive antibiotic therapy in acute stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data of randomized controlled trials

W. Westendorp, J. Vermeij, Craig J. Smith, A. Kishore, J. Hodsoll, L. Kalra, A. Meisel, Á. Chamorro et al.

European Stroke Journal, 2021

4,197 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Introduction Infection after stroke is associated with unfavorable outcome. Randomized controlled studies did not show benefit of preventive antibiotics in stroke but lacked power for subgroup analyses. Aim of this study is to assess whether preventive antibiotic therapy after stroke improves functional outcome for specific patient groups in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Patients and methods We searched MEDLINE (1946–7 May 2021), Embase (1947–7 May 2021), CENTRAL (17th September 2021), trial registries, cross-checked references and contacted researchers for randomized controlled trials of preventive antibiotic therapy versus placebo or standard care in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients. Meta-analysis was performed by a one-step and two-step approach. Primary outcome was functional outcome adjusted for age and stroke severity. Secondary outcomes were infections and mortality. Results 4197 patients from nine trials were included. Preventive antibiotic therapy was not associated with a shift in functional outcome (mRS) at 3 months (OR1.13, 95%CI 0.98–1.31) or unfavorable functional outcome (mRS 3–6) (OR0.85, 95%CI 0.60–1.19). Preventive antibiotics did not improve functional outcome in pre-defined subgroups (age, stroke severity, timing and type of antibiotic therapy, pneumonia prediction scores, dysphagia, type of stroke, and type of trial). Preventive antibiotics reduced infections (276/2066 (13.4%) in the preventive antibiotic group vs. 417/2059 (20.3%) in…

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: 4,197 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