ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Efficacy of Continuous vs. Intermittent Administration of Cefepime in Adult ICU Patients with Gram-Negative Bacilli Bacteremia: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Study.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study was to compare the continuous infusion of cefepime with the intermittent infusion in patients with sepsis caused by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB).
methodsRandomized 1:1 multicenter double-blinded placebo-controlled study with allocation concealment; multicenter study in the intensive care units of Colombia. Patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, and GNB-suspected bacteremia. Cefepime was administered for 7 to 14 days over 30 m intermittently every 8 h over 24 h plus continuous saline solution (0.9%) (G1) or 3 g administered continuously plus saline solution every 8 h (0.9%) (G2). The percentage of clinical response at 3, 7, and 14 days, relapse at 28 days, and mortality at discharge were measured.
resultsThe recruitment was stopped at the suggestion of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) following an FDA alert about cefepime. Thirty-two patients were randomized; 25 received the intervention, and GNB bacteremia was confirmed in 16 (9 G1 and 7 G2). Favorable clinical response in days 3, 7, and 14 was 88.8%, 88.8%, and 77.8% (G1) and was similar for G2 (85.7%). There were no relapses or deaths in G2, while in G1, one relapse and two deaths were observed.
conclusionsThe results of this study support the use of cefepime for the treatment of Gram-negative infections in critically ill patients, but we could not demonstrate differences between continuous or intermittent administration because of the small sample size, given the early suspension of the study.
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.