Trial reportThorax2000
Treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia: a prospective randomised comparison of intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem/cilastatin.
Trial report in Thorax, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01570192 (Impact of Aggressive Empiric Antibiotic Therapy and Duration of Therapy on the Emergence of Antimicrobial Resistance During the Treatment of Hospitalized Subjects With Pneumonia Requiring Mechanical Ventilation), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Impact of Aggressive Empiric Antibiotic Therapy and Duration of Therapy on the Emergence of Antimicrobial Resistance During the Treatment of Hospitalized Subjects With Pneumonia Requiring Mechanical Ventilation
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016Guideline
- Imipenem resistance of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Antimicrobial Therapies and Clinical Outcomes inLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- In Vitro and In Vivo Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of Zinc Sulfate (ZnSOAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Beta-Lactam vs. Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Antibiotic selection in the treatment of acute invasive infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Guidelines by the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2018Review
- Signal Detection of Imipenem Compared to Other Drugs from Korea Adverse Event Reporting System Database.Yonsei medical journal · 2017Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2008Article
- Intravenous or sequential ciprofloxacin therapy in hospitalised patients with a broad spectrum of infections: a post-marketing surveillance study.Clinical drug investigation · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA prospective multicentre study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of intravenous ciprofloxacin or imipenem in the treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation.
methodsPatients with a clinical suspicion of pneumonia were randomised to receive either ciprofloxacin (800-1200 mg/day) or imipenem (2-4 g/day) in doses adjusted for renal function and specimens of the lower respiratory tract were taken. Patients were included in the study when specimens showed significant growth for potentially pathogenic microorganisms in quantitative bacterial cultures (n = 75, ciprofloxacin 41/75 (55%); imipenem 34/75 (45%)). The clinical and bacteriological success rates were the primary and secondary efficacy variables. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed for all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study medication (n = 149, ciprofloxacin 72/149 (48%), imipenem 77/149 (52%)).
resultsThe success rates were generally good, but neither the clinical success rates (ciprofloxacin, 29/41 (71%), imipenem, 27/34 (79%); 95% CI -10.8 to 28.1; p = 0.435) nor the bacteriological response rate (ciprofloxacin, 20/41 (49%), imipenem, 17/34 (50%); 95% CI -21.5 to 23.9; p = 1.0) were significantly different between the study arms. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was recovered in 26/75 patients (35%) and clinical (ciprofloxacin, 10/14 (71%), imipenem, 8/12 (67%); 95% CI -40.4 to 30.9; p = 1.0) and bacteriological response rates (ciprofloxacin, 7/14 (50%), imipenem, 3/12 (25%), 95% CI -60.9 to 10.9, p = 0.247) were not significantly different in this subgroup of patients. Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa developed in 5/26 cases (19%), 1/14 (7%) to ciprofloxacin and 4/12 (33%) to imipenem (p = 0.147), and the mortality was 12/75 (16%) with no difference between treatment groups (ciprofloxacin, 8/41(24%), imipenem 4/34 (17%); p = 0.362). The clinical response was evaluable in 109/149 patients (73%) in the intent-to-treat analysis and was successful in 74/109 patients (68%). The clinical response rates were also not significantly different in the intent-to-treat analysis (ciprofloxacin, 34/52 (65%), imipenem, 40/57 (70%); 95% CI -12.8 to 22.3; p = 0.746).
conclusionsTreatment with either ciprofloxacin or imipenem was effective in a selected group of patients with microbiologically confirmed, severe nosocomial pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. Although no differences between the study medication could be documented in this trial, smaller differences between treatment arms may have been missed because of sample size limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.