Evidence Hub

Prolonged vs Intermittent Infusions of β-Lactam Antibiotics in Adults With Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

M. Abdul-Aziz, Naomi E. Hammond, S. J. Brett, M. Cotta, J. D. De Waele, Anthony Devaux, G. D. Di Tanna, J. Dulhunty et al.

Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2024

9,108 participants · 154 citations

Abstract

Importance

There is uncertainty about whether prolonged infusions of β-lactam antibiotics improve clinically important outcomes in critically ill adults with sepsis or septic shock.

Objective

To determine whether prolonged β-lactam antibiotic infusions are associated with a reduced risk of death in critically ill adults with sepsis or septic shock compared with intermittent infusions.

Data Sources

The primary search was conducted with MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing prolonged (continuous or extended) and intermittent infusions of β-lactam antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis or septic shock.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction and risk of bias were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A bayesian framework was used as the primary analysis approach and a frequentist framework as the secondary approach.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and clinical cure.

Results

From 18 eligible randomized clinical trials that included 9108 critically ill adults with sepsis or septic shock (median age, 54 years; IQR, 48-57; 5961 men [65%]), 17 trials (9014 participants)…

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: 9,108 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