Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2012
Clinical and microbiological efficacy of continuous versus intermittent application of meropenem in critically ill patients: a randomized open-label controlled trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
73 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.
- β-lactam infusion strategies in critical illness: is continuous superior to extended infusion? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Continuous or extended vs intermittent infusions of beta-lactam antibiotics in ICU patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- Continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactams in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Continuous vs. intermittent meropenem infusion in critically ill patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Mortality of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus of meropenem: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases: Meta-analysis and systematic review.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Bolus of Beta-Lactams in Critically Ill Patients with Respiratory Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Optimal dosing of antibiotics in critically ill patients by using continuous/extended infusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2013Pooled it
- Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Comparative Plasma and Interstitial Tissue Fluid Pharmacokinetics of Meropenem Demonstrate the Need for Increasing Dose and Infusion Duration in Obese and Non-obese Patients.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Trial
- Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Efficacies of Continuous versus Intermittent Administration of Meropenem in Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.Chinese medical journal · 2017Trial
- Clinical outcomes of extended versus intermittent administration of piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Trial
- Beta-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis.Intensive care medicine · 2016Trial
- Population pharmacokinetics and probability of target attainment of meropenem in critically ill patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Trial
- Assessment of pharmacokinetic changes of meropenem during therapy in septic critically ill patients.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2014Trial
- Article
- Significant Publications on Infectious Diseases Pharmacotherapy in 2024.Journal of pharmacy practice · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy and safety of extended versus continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics for severe infection: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reply to the comment on "Prolonged versus short-term infusion of meropenem for the treatment of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeropenem bactericidal activity depends on the time when the free drug concentrations remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration of pathogens. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and bacteriological efficacy of continuous meropenem infusion versus bolus administration in critically ill patients with severe infection, and to evaluate the safety of both dosing regimens.
methodsPatients admitted to the interdisciplinary Intensive Care Unit (ICU) who suffered from severe infections and received meropenem were randomized either in the Infusion group (n = 120) or in the Bolus group (n = 120). Patients in the Infusion group received a loading dose of 2 g of meropenem followed by a continuous infusion of 4 g of meropenem over 24 hours. Patients in the Bolus group were given 2 g of meropenem over 30 minutes every 8 hours. Clinical and microbiological outcome, safety, meropenem-related length of ICU and hospital stay, meropenem-related length of mechanical ventilation, duration of meropenem treatment, total dose of meropenem, and ICU and in-hospital mortality were assessed.
resultsClinical cure at the end of meropenem therapy was comparable between both groups (83.0% patients in the Infusion vs. 75.0% patients in the Bolus group; P = 0.180). Microbiological success rate was higher in the Infusion group as opposed to the Bolus group (90.6% vs. 78.4%; P = 0.020). Multivariate logistic regression identified continuous administration of meropenem as an independent predictor of microbiological success (OR = 2.977; 95% CI = 1.050 to 8.443; P = 0.040). Meropenem-related ICU stay was shorter in the Infusion group compared to the Bolus group (10 (7 to 14) days vs. 12 (7 to 19) days; P = 0.044) as well as shorter duration of meropenem therapy (7 (6 to 8) days vs. 8 (7 to 10) days; P = 0.035) and lower total dose of meropenem (24 (21 to 32) grams vs. 48 (42 to 60) grams; P < 0.0001). No severe adverse events related to meropenem administration in either group were observed.
conclusionsContinuous infusion of meropenem is safe and, in comparison with higher intermittent dosage, provides equal clinical outcome, generates superior bacteriological efficacy and offers encouraging alternative of antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients.
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.