Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33042550›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2020

Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam antibiotics intravenous infusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials.

Yutaka Kondo, Kohei Ota, Haruki Imura, Naoki Hara, Nobuaki Shime

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Difficult-to-TreatAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yutaka KondoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, Chiba, 279-0021 Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1072-7089
Kohei OtaDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Kasumi 1-2-3, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551 Japan.
Haruki ImuraDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Otowachinjicho 2, Kyoto-shi, Yamashina-ku, Kyoto, 607-8062 Japan.
Naoki HaraJapan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, 3211 Kozukue, Kohoku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 222-0036 Japan.
Nobuaki ShimeDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Kasumi 1-2-3, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551 Japan.
Hiroshima University · JPJuntendo University Urayasu Hospital · JPRakuwakai Otowa Hospital · JPYokohama Rosai Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prolonged β-lactam infusion strategy has emerged as the standard treatment for sepsis or septic shock despite its unknown efficacy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam antibiotics infusion on outcomes in sepsis or septic shock patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsA thorough search was conducted on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mortality between prolonged and intermittent infusion in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of the target plasma concentration, clinical cure, adverse events, and occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified according to the year of publication before or after 2015 and a trial sequential analysis (TSA). The Der Simonian-Laird random-effects models were subsequently used to report the pooled risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI).

resultsWe identified 2869 studies from the 3 databases, and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Hospital mortality did not decrease (RR 0.69 [95%CI 0.47-1.02]) in the prolonged infusion group. The attainment of the target plasma concentration and clinical cure significantly improved (RR 0.40 [95%CI 0.21-0.75] and RR 0.84 [95%CI 0.73-0.97], respectively) in the prolonged infusion group. There were, however, no significant differences in the adverse events and the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between the groups (RR 1.01 (95%CI 0.95-1.06) and RR 0.53 [95%CI 0.10-2.83], respectively). For the subgroup analysis, a significant improvement in hospital mortality or clinical cure was reported in studies published in or after 2015 (RR 0.66 [95%CI 0.44-0.98] and RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50-0.90], respectively). The results of the TSA indicated an insufficient number of studies for a definitive analysis.

conclusionsThe prolonged infusion of β-lactam antibiotics significantly improved upon attaining the target plasma concentration and clinical cure without increasing the adverse event or the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prolonged infusion could not improve hospital mortality although an improvement was shown for studies published in or after 2015. Further studies are warranted as suggested by our TSA results.

Indexed as

AntibioticsContinuous infusionPharmacokineticSepsisSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID33042550
PMCPMC7541232
OpenAlexW3092401650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.