Comparison of clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock

PING Ze; ZHANG Jianjun; WANG Jinrong; CHAI Chengguo; LI Ning

doi:10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2024.13.14

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Comparison of clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock

更新时间：2024-07-10

- Comparison of clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock
- ZHONGGUO YAOFANG Vol. 35, Issue 13, Pages: 1624-1627(2024)
- 作者机构：
  
  1.衡水市人民医院药学部，河北衡水　053000
  2.衡水市人民医院重症医学科，河北衡水　053000
  3.衡水市人民医院输血科，河北衡水　053000
  4.衡水市人民医院检验科，河北衡水　053000
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2024.13.14
  CLC： R969
- Published：15 July 2024，
  
  Received：27 October 2023，
  
  Revised：16 May 2024，
- 稿件说明：
扫描看全文
平泽,张建军,王金荣等.不同剂量美罗培南治疗脓毒症休克的临床效果比较 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2024,35(13):1624-1627.

PING Ze,ZHANG Jianjun,WANG Jinrong,et al.Comparison of clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2024,35(13):1624-1627.
平泽,张建军,王金荣等.不同剂量美罗培南治疗脓毒症休克的临床效果比较 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2024,35(13):1624-1627. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2024.13.14.

PING Ze,ZHANG Jianjun,WANG Jinrong,et al.Comparison of clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2024,35(13):1624-1627. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2024.13.14.

摘要

目的

比较不同剂量美罗培南治疗脓毒症休克的临床效果。

方法

将106例脓毒症休克患者按随机数字表法分为标准剂量组和高剂量组，每组53例。标准剂量组患者予以标准剂量美罗培南（首次静脉滴注美罗培南1 g，持续30 min以上，然后每8 h静脉滴注美罗培南1 g，每次3 h以上）；高剂量组患者予以高剂量美罗培南（首次静脉滴注美罗培南2 g，持续30 min以上，然后每8 h静脉滴注美罗培南2 g，每次3 h以上）；其余治疗措施根据患者具体情况而定。主要观察指标为两组患者治疗3、5、7 d时的序贯器官衰竭估计（SOFA）评分和简化的急性生理评分Ⅱ（SAPS Ⅱ）的增量。次要观察指标为两组患者的院内死亡率，90 d全因病死率，7 d微生物治愈率，7 d临床治愈率，治疗3、5、7 d时的血清降钙素原（PCT）和C反应蛋白（CRP）水平，重症监护室住院天数，呼吸机治疗天数，去甲肾上腺素最高剂量。同时观察两组患者的不良反应发生情况。

结果

高剂量组患者治疗7 d时的SOFA评分增量、SAPS Ⅱ增量，治疗5、7 d时的PCT、CRP水平以及90 d全因病死率均显著低于标准剂量组（

＜0.05）。两组间其他指标比较，差异均无统计学意义（

＞0.05）。

结论

高剂量美罗培南治疗脓毒症休克相比标准剂量美罗培南具有更好的临床效果，且安全性较好。

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effects of different doses of meropenem in the treatment of septic shock.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients with septic shock were randomly divided into standard-dose group and high-dose group， with 53 cases in each group. Patients in the standard-dose group were given standard dose of meropenem （initial intravenous injection of 1 g meropenem more than 30 minutes， followed by 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 hours， each time for more than 3 hours）； patients in the high-dose group were given high dose of meropenem （initial intravenous injection of 2 g meropenem more than 30 minutes， followed by 2 g meropenem intravenously every 8 hours， each time for more than 3 hours）； other treatment measures were determined based on the specific conditions of the patients. The main observation indicators were the increments of sequential organ failure assessment （SOFA） scores and simplified acute physiology score Ⅱ （SAPS Ⅱ） after 3， 5 and 7 days of treatment in both groups. Secondary observation indicators included in-hospital mortality， 90-day all-cause mortality， 7-day microbial cure rate， 7-day clinical cure rate， serum procalcitonin （PCT） and C-reactive protein （CRP） levels after 3， 5 and 7 days of treatment， hospitalization days in the intensive care unit， ventilator treatment days， the highest dose of norepinephrine. The occurrence of adverse drug reaction in the two groups was observed.

RESULTS

The increments of SOFA scores and SAPS Ⅱ after 7 days of treatment， the levels of PCT and CRP after 5 and 7 days of treatment as well as the 90-day all-cause mortality in the high-dose group were significantly lower than the standard-dose group （

＜0.05）. There were no statistically significant differences in other indicators between the two groups （

＞0.05）.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose meropenem treatment for septic shock has better clinical effects and is safer than standard-dose meropenem.

关键词

脓毒症休克美罗培南剂量临床效果

Keywords

meropenemdoseclinical effect

references

GUARINO M，PERNA B，CESARO A E，et al. 2023 update on sepsis and septic shock in adult patients：management in the emergency department[J]. J Clin Med，2023，12（9）：3188.

EVANS L，RHODES A，ALHAZZANI W，et al. Survi- ving sepsis campaign：international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021[J]. Intensive Care Med，2021，47（11）：1181-1247.

HOWELL M D，DAVIS A M. Management of sepsis and septic shock[J]. JAMA，2017，317（8）：847-848.

BOONPENG A，JARURATANASIRIKUL S，JULLANGKOON M，et al. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and clinical outcomes of meropenem in critically ill patients[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother，2022，66（11）：e0084522.

YE X L，WANG F，ZENG W Q，et al. Comparison of empirical high-dose and low-dose of meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock：a randomized controlled study protocol[J]. Medicine，2020，99（51）：e22829.

TROISI C，COJUTTI P G，RINALDI M，et al. Measuring creatinine clearance is the most accurate way for calcula- ting the proper continuous infusion meropenem dose for empirical treatment of severe gram-negative infections among critically ill patients[J]. Pharmaceutics，2023，15（2）：551.

ROGGEVEEN L F，GUO T J，FLEUREN L M，et al. Right dose，right now：bedside，real-time，data-driven，and personalized antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock：a two-centre randomized clinical trial[J]. Crit Care，2022，26（1）：265.

MORENO R，RHODES A，PIQUILLOUD L，et al. The sequential organ failure assessment （SOFA） score：has the time come for an update?[J]. Crit Care，2023，27（1）：15.

YANG J M，CHEN J，ZHANG M，et al. Prognostic impacts of repeated sepsis in intensive care unit on autoimmune disease patients：a retrospective cohort study[J]. BMC Infect Dis，2024，24（1）：197.

BARANOWSKY A，APPELT J，KLEBER C，et al. Procalcitonin exerts a mediator role in septic shock through the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor[J]. Crit Care Med，2021，49（1）：e41-e52.

SCHUPP T，WEIDNER K，RUSNAK J，et al. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin during course of sepsis and septic shock[J]. Ir J Med Sci，2024，193（1）：457-468.

LERTWATTANACHAI T，MONTAKANTIKUL P，TANGSUJARITVIJIT V，et al. Clinical outcomes of empirical high-dose meropenem in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock：a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Intensive Care，2020，8：26.

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

胸外科围术期抗菌药物使用全程持续干预的效果评价

Related Author

刘晓凤简晓顺周明唐海波姜顺军

Related Institution

No data

Address：8th Floor, Sihuan Building, No. 129 Daping Main Street, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, China Postal code：400042
Technical support is provided by Beijing Founder Electronics co., LTD 渝ICP备15012710号公网安备50010302001817
It is recommended to read the content of this site in Chrome&IE9+. Please switch to extreme mode in browser 360.
Cookies We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies.

⁰