JAC Advance Access published online on November 28, 2006
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, doi:10.1093/jac/dkl478
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Burns Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Objectives: To compare the clinical and bacteriological outcome of critically ill patients with sepsis treated by ceftriaxone administered as a once-a-day intermittent bolus dose or by 24 h continuous infusion. Patients and methods: We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled pilot study in 57 patients clinically diagnosed with sepsis (suspected/proven infection and systemic inflammatory response syndrome) in a tertiary level intensive care unit. Patients were randomized to receive 2 g of ceftriaxone administered by once-daily intermittent bolus dosing or by 24 h continuous infusion. Clinical and bacteriological outcomes were assessed by blinded clinicians. Results: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the study, 50 of whom fulfilled the a priori definition of treatment for 4 or more days. The infusion (n = 29) and bolus groups (n = 28) were similar in terms of demographics, although the median age of those receiving the infusion was younger. Intention-to-treat analysis found no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes for clinical response (P = 0.17), clinical cure [infusion n = 13/29 versus bolus n = 5/28; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.11-12.57; P = 0.06], bacteriological response (P = 0.41) and bacteriological cure (infusion n = 18/29 versus bolus 14/28; AOR = 1.64; 95% CI = 0.57-4.70; P = 0.52). However, logistic regression in patients that complied with the a priori definitions who received ceftriaxone by continuous infusion (AOR = 22.8; 95% CI = 2.24-232.3; P = 0.008) or patients with a low Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (AOR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.54-0.91; P = 0.008) were associated with an improved clinical outcome when age and Sepsis Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at time of study entry were controlled for. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests clinical and bacteriological advantages of continuous infusion of ceftriaxone over bolus administration in critically ill patients in patients requiring 4 or more days of treatment. This sets the scene for a large multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial to confirm these findings.
Received August 16, 2006
Revised October 30, 2006
Accepted October 30, 2006
Original article
Is continuous infusion ceftriaxone better than once-a-day dosing in intensive care? A randomized controlled pilot study
Jason A. Roberts 1, Rob Boots 1, Claire M. Rickard 2, Peter Thomas 3, Jo Quinn 3, Darren M. Roberts 3, Brent Richards 4, and Jeffrey Lipman 1 *
2 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
3 Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
4 Gold Coast Hospital, Gold Coast, Australia
Jeffrey Lipman, E-mail: j.lipman{at}uq.edu.au
Abstract 
-lactams; antibiotics; sepsis; outcome.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?