The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli
Abstract
Background: It is known that β-lactam antibiotics exhibit time-dependent bactericidal activity. Several studies have found continuous infusion of meropenem more effective than intermittent infusion in maintaining constant serum concentrations in excess of the minimum inhibitory concentration. However, limited data exist on the clinical efficacy of meropenem administered by continuous infusion. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of continuous versus intermittent infusion of meropenem for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to gram-negative bacilli. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with VAP caused by gram-negative bacilli who received initial empiric antibiotic therapy with meropenem. We analyzed 2 contemporary cohorts: one group received meropenem by continuous infusion (1 g over 360 min every 6 h), the other by intermittent infusion (1 g over 30 min every 6 h). The administration method was prescribed according to the physician's discretion. Patients received meropenem plus tobramycin for 14 days. Results: There were no significant differences between patient groups with regard to gender, age, APACHE-II at intensive care unit admission, diagnosis, microorganism responsible for VAP, or organ dysfunction severity at the time VAP was suspected. The group receiving medication by continuous infusion showed a greater clinical cure rate than the group treated with intermittent infusion (38 of 42, 90.47%, vs 28 of 47, 59.57%, respectively, with OR 6.44 [95% Cl 1.97 to 21.05; p < 0.001]). Conclusions: Meropenem administered by continuous infusion may have more clinical efficacy than intermittent infusion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vincent, J. L., Moreno, R., Takala, J., Willatts, S., De Mendonça, A., Bruining, H., Reinhart, C. K., Suter, P. M., & Thijs, L. G. (1996) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01709751 · Cited by 11,674
Cited by
Guilhaumou, R., Benaboud, S., Bennis, Y., Dahyot-Fizelier, C., Dailly, E., Gandia, P., Goutelle, S., Lefeuvre, S., Mongardon, N., Roger, C., et al. (2019) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2378-9 · Cited by 543
Augmented Renal Clearance: Implications for Antibacterial Dosing in the Critically Ill
Udy, A. A., Roberts, J. A., Boots, R. J., Paterson, D. L., & Lipman, J. (2010) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/11318140-000000000-00000 · Cited by 377
Pneumonia Due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Fujitani, S., Sun, H.-Y., Yu, V. L., & Weingarten, J. A. (2011) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.10-0166 · Cited by 273
Veiga, R. P., & Paiva, J.-A. (2018) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-018-2155-1 · Cited by 203
Continuous infusion of β-lactam antibiotics in severe infections: a review of its role
Roberts, J. A., Paratz, J., Paratz, E., Krueger, W. A., & Lipman, J. (2007) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.02.002 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Lorente, L., Lorenzo, L., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L.
- Venue
- Annals of Pharmacotherapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 219-223
- ISSN
- 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
- 1060-0280
- 1542-6270
- OpenAlex
- W2160331061
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1345/aph.1g467
- The paper
- Lorente, L., Lorenzo, L., Martín, M. M., Jiménez, A., & Mora, M. L. (2006). Meropenem by Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion in Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia due to Gram-Negative Bacilli. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1g467
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.