Evidence Hub

Empirical antibiotic therapy for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage-associated pneumonia: an ICU-based single-centered retrospective cohort study

X. Tao, Junwei Wang, Jing Rao, Junjie Zhong, Zhou Shu, Pei-Shan Cai, Qi Li, Fang Zeng et al.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2025

85 participants

Abstract

Pneumonia is a common and severe complication following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) and is associated with significantly worse clinical outcomes. However, there remains insufficient evidence supporting empirical antibiotic regimens for SICH-associated pneumonia (SICHAP). To evaluate the clinical efficacy of different empirical antibiotic regimens in patients with SICHAP and to provide evidence for optimizing initial antimicrobial strategies. This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled adult patients with SICH who developed pneumonia within 7 days of onset between July and December 2024. Patients were stratified according to their initial empirical antibiotic regimen: cefazolin (CFZ), ceftriaxone (CRO), cefoperazone-sulbactam (CFP-SUL), or piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ). The primary outcome was the clinical efficacy rate at 72 h. The secondary outcomes included the SICHAP treatment failure rate, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of antibiotic therapy. Treatment appropriateness was assessed on the basis of sputum culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. A total of 85 patients (mean age 54.2 ± 13.5 years, 63.5% male) were enrolled, with 90.6% presenting with early SICHAP. The 72-hour efficacy rate in the CFP-SUL group (73.3%) was significantly greater than that in the CFZ group (25.0%), CRO group (54.5%), and PIP-TAZ group (58.8%) (p = 0.022). The overall SICHAP treatment failure rate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 85 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