ArticleJournal of trauma and injury2025
Inhaled amikacin as a preventive strategy against ventilator-associated pneumonia in a trauma intensive care unit: early evidence from a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of trauma and injury, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units (ICUs). The effectiveness of prophylactic inhaled amikacin in preventing VAP remains uncertain. This study compared VAP incidence between patients with trauma who received prophylactic inhaled amikacin and those who did not.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of 66 mechanically ventilated trauma patients admitted to the ICU between May and December 2024. Primary outcomes were infection-related ventilator-associated conditions (IVAC) and microbiologically confirmed VAP. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality. Statistical analyses comprised chi-square tests, multivariate logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity score matching.
resultsA total of 66 patients were included: 28 in the prophylaxis group and 38 in the control group. The prophylaxis group demonstrated a higher unadjusted incidence of IVAC (85.71% vs. 55.26%, P=0.02) and VAP (82.14% vs. 44.74%, P<0.01) compared with the control group. However, after adjustment, logistic regression revealed no significant association between inhaled amikacin and increased risk of VAP (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-12.81; P=0.11) or IVAC (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 0.71-16.43; P=0.15). Similarly, Cox regression analysis showed no significant effect on VAP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 0.47-2.58; P=0.82) or IVAC (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.78-3.59; P=0.18). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionsProphylactic inhaled amikacin neither prevented nor increased IVAC and VAP risk in mechanically ventilated trauma patients, suggesting no meaningful impact on VAP outcomes in this population.
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.