ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
High-dose versus standard-dose intermittent meropenem in critically ill patients: An observational cohort study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The impact of high-dose versus standard-dose meropenem on outcomes in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study in Vienna, Austria, including critically ill patients treated with meropenem from March 2014 to March 2024. Eligible patients had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay of ≥3 days and received either high-dose (6 g/day) or standard-dose (3 g/day) meropenem via intermittent infusion (or equivalent doses in patients with impaired renal function). We applied 2:1 propensity score matching with covariate adjustment to adjust for confounding by indication. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, emergence of antimicrobial resistance, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), new onset of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and length of ICU and hospital stay. Occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was evaluated as a safety endpoint. Results: Of 4,210 critically ill patients who received meropenem, we matched 1144 treated with high-dose intermittent infusions with 572 patients who received standard-dose therapy. The 90-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the high-dose meropenem group (adjusted risk, 31.5%; 95% CI, 28.5-34.5) compared to the standard-dose group (adjusted risk, 40.9%; 95% CI, 36.7-45.1), with an adjusted risk difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 4.8-14.1; p < 0.001). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, with adjusted risks for 30-day mortality (high-dose vs. standard-dose: adjusted risks, 20.0% vs. 22.2%), resistance emergence (5.0% vs. 6.2%), ECMO initiation (6.1% vs. 7.3%), and new-onset ARDS (20.8% vs. 24.9%) showing no significant differences. Adjusted mean ICU and hospital length of stay were comparable (21.5 vs. 21.4 days and 44.3 vs. 41.7 days, respectively). High-dose therapy was associated with a lower adjusted risk of AKI (60.6% vs. 68.2%). Conclusions: High-dose intermittent meropenem was independently associated with lower 90-day all-cause mortality compared with standard-dose therapy in critically ill patients.
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.