Continuous versus intermittent administration of piperacillin-tazobactam in intensive care unit patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia

17Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Aims: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-acquired infection. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of continuous and intermittent administration of piperacillin-tazobactam by serial measurements of the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS). Subjects and Methods: Groups were designed as parallel and the study was designed as quasi-experimental and conducted at a semi-closed ICU between September 2008 and May 2010. Patients received 3.375 g (piperacillin 3 g/tazobactam 0.375 g) either through intermittent infusion every 6 h for 30 min [Intermittent Infusion (II) group; n = 30] or through continuous infusion every 8 h for 4 h [Continuous Infusion (CI) group; n = 31]. CPIS was used to assess the clinical diagnosis and outcome of VAP patients. Results: Sex, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II II score on ICU admission, diagnosis and underlying disease of VAP patients were not significantly different in the CI (n = 31) and II (n = 30) groups. Duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, total number of antibiotics used per patient and duration of piperacillin/tazobactam treatment were similar in both groups. Mortality rates of VAP patients were similar between both groups during hospitalization. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of patients receiving piperacillin-tazobactam via CI or II when measured by serial CPIS score.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fahimi, F., Ghafari, S., Jamaati, H., Baniasadi, S., Tabarsi, P., Najafi, A., … Hashemian, S. (2012). Continuous versus intermittent administration of piperacillin-tazobactam in intensive care unit patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 16(3), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.102083

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free