Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Zhao, Yang; Zang, Bin; Wang, Qian

doi:10.1186/s13613-024-01263-9

Annals of Intensive Care

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Prolonged versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author	Study design	Infection type	Country	Participants (N) PI vs II	Mean/median age (years) PI vs II	Female (N) PI vs II	Mean/median APACHE II score PI vs II	Pathogen	Antibiotics
Monti et al. [13]	Double-blind, RCT	Sepsis/septic shock	Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia	303 vs 304	66 vs 63	108 vs 95	44 vs 43^a	Mostly Gram-negative	Meropenem
Mirjalili et al. [12]	Assessor-blind RCT	Sepsis/septic shock	Iran	68 vs 68	54 vs 53	31 vs 30	19.1 vs 19.2	Gram-negative	Ampicillin/sulbactam
Zhao et al. [31]	RCT	Sepsis/septic shock	China	25 vs 25	68 vs 67	15 vs 14	19.4 vs 19.7	Gram-negative	Meropenem
Abdul-Aziz et al. [30]	Open-label RCT	Severe sepsis	Malaysian	70 vs 70	54 vs 56	24 vs 20	21 vs 21	Mostly Gram- negative	Piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, meropenem
Dulhunty et al. [29]	Double-blind, RCT	Severe sepsis	Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong	212 vs 220	64 vs 65	82 vs 85	21 vs 20	Mixed	Piperacillin/tazobactam, Ticarcillin/clavulanate, Meropenem
Dulhunty et al. [28]	Double-blind RCT	Severe sepsis	Australia and Hong Kong	30 vs 30	54 vs 60	7 vs 11	21 vs 23	Mixed	Piperacillin/tazobactam, Ticarcillin/clavulanate, Meropenem
Chytra et al. [27]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	Plzen	106 vs 108	45 vs 47	42 vs 37	21.4 vs 22.1	Mostly Gram-negative	Meropenem
Roberts et al. [26]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	Australia	8 vs 8	30 vs 41	2 vs 3	20 vs 24	Gram-negative	Piperacillin/tazobactam
Roberts et al. [24]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	Australia	5 vs 5	57 vs 55	1 vs 2	NA	Gram-negative	Meropenem
Roberts et al. [25]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	Australia	6 vs 7	25 vs 42	0 vs 3	17.5 vs 24.0	Gram-negative	Piperacillin/tazobactam
Roberts et al. [23]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	Australia	29 vs 28	43 vs 52	13 vs 11	18.8 vs 16.4	Mixed	Ceftriaxone
Rafati et al. [22]	RCT	Sepsis	Tehran	20 vs 20	50 vs 48	8 vs 5	16.4 vs 14.2	Gram- negative	Piperacillin
Lau et al. [21]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	the United States	128 vs 130	50 vs 49	47 vs 55	7 vs 7	Mixed	Piperacillin/tazobactam
Georges et al. [33]	Open-label RCT	Sepsis	France	26 vs 24	50 vs 46	5 vs 4	45 vs 44^a	Mostly Gram-negative	Cefepime
Angus et al. [32]	RCT	Septicemic melioidosis	Thailand	10 vs 11	48 vs 43	1 vs 7	15 vs 21	Gram-negative	Ceftazidime

^aSimplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II); PI, prolonged infusion; II, intermittent infusion; NA, not available; APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; h, hour

Back to article page