Evidence Hub

Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Havey TC, Fowler RA, Daneman N

Critical care (London, England), 2011

227 participants · 192 citations

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for bloodstream infections is unknown. Shorter durations of therapy have been demonstrated to be as effective as longer durations for many common infections; similar findings in bacteremia could enable hospitals to reduce antibiotic utilization, adverse events, resistance and costs.

Methods: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was conducted for the years 1947-2010. Controlled trials were identified that randomized patients to shorter versus longer durations of treatment for bacteremia, or the infectious foci most commonly causing bacteremia in critically ill patients (catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia, pyelonephritis and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI)).

Results: Twenty-four eligible trials were identified, including one trial focusing exclusively on bacteremia, zero in catheter related bloodstream infection, three in intra-abdominal infection, six in pyelonephritis, thirteen in pneumonia and one in skin and soft tissue infection. Thirteen studies reported on 227 patients with bacteremia allocated to 'shorter' or 'longer' durations of treatment. Outcome data were available for 155 bacteremic patients: neonatal bacteremia (n = 66); intra-abdominal infection (40); pyelonephritis (9); and pneumonia (40). Among bacteremic patients receiving shorter (5-7 days) versus longer (7-21 days) antibiotic therapy, no significant difference was detected…

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: 227 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