ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Empirical antibiotic therapy for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage-associated pneumonia: an ICU-based single-centered retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPneumonia is a common and severe complication following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) and is associated with significantly worse clinical outcomes. However, there remains insufficient evidence supporting empirical antibiotic regimens for SICH-associated pneumonia (SICHAP).
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of different empirical antibiotic regimens in patients with SICHAP and to provide evidence for optimizing initial antimicrobial strategies.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled adult patients with SICH who developed pneumonia within 7 days of onset between July and December 2024. Patients were stratified according to their initial empirical antibiotic regimen: cefazolin (CFZ), ceftriaxone (CRO), cefoperazone-sulbactam (CFP-SUL), or piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ). The primary outcome was the clinical efficacy rate at 72 h. The secondary outcomes included the SICHAP treatment failure rate, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of antibiotic therapy. Treatment appropriateness was assessed on the basis of sputum culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
resultsA total of 85 patients (mean age 54.2 ± 13.5 years, 63.5% male) were enrolled, with 90.6% presenting with early SICHAP. The 72-hour efficacy rate in the CFP-SUL group (73.3%) was significantly greater than that in the CFZ group (25.0%), CRO group (54.5%), and PIP-TAZ group (58.8%) (p = 0.022). The overall SICHAP treatment failure rate was 55.3%, with no significant intergroup differences (p = 0.137). In the sputum culture-positive subgroup (n = 49), appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy (AEAT) significantly reduced treatment failure (58.1% vs. 94.4%, p = 0.008). Pathogens were predominantly Gram-negative (75.3%), with the most common isolates being Klebsiella pneumoniae (42.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (40.8%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (22.4%). High rates of ESBL production and carbapenemase detection were observed.
conclusionAmong SICHAP patients, empirical CFP-SUL therapy demonstrated greater 72-hour clinical efficacy, and AEATs significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure. These findings suggest that CFP-SUL may be favored for early empirical antimicrobial therapy in this population, although prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. CLINICAL TRIAL: Clinical trial number: not applicable.
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.