ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2023
Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
- Delayed-Onset Cefepime Neurotoxicity in a Patient With Epilepsy and ESRD.Case reports in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice. Objective: Compare clinical and economic outcomes for cefepime by intermittent infusion and by extended infusion in the acute-care setting. Design: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary-care academic medical center. Patients: Hospitalized adults who received cefepime between August 2016 and July 2018 with a diagnosis of sepsis or pneumonia. Methods: Clinical and economic outcomes were compared for patients who received empiric cefepime via intermittent infusion (30-minute infusion of 2 g every 8 hours) or extended infusion (3-hour infusion of 1 g every 6 hours). Clinical outcomes analyses were carried out using appropriate statistical methods. Results: Overall, 111 patients received intermittent infusion and 93 patients received extended infusion. Approximately half of the included patients had a positive culture for a bacterial pathogen (intermittent infusion 45.9% vs extended infusion 47.3%). Median hospital length of stay (intermittent infusion 6 days vs extended infusion 6 days; Conclusions: Cefepime via extended infusion (4 grams/day) did not differ in clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion (6 grams/day) but reduced drug expenditure. Prospective, multicenter, high-quality studies should be conducted to evaluate a mortality difference between these regimens.
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.