↓ Skip to main content

Continuous infusion of antibiotics in the critically ill: The new holy grail for beta-lactams and vancomycin?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Continuous infusion of antibiotics in the critically ill: The new holy grail for beta-lactams and vancomycin?
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Van Herendael, Axel Jeurissen, Paul M Tulkens, Erika Vlieghe, Walter Verbrugghe, Philippe G Jorens, Margareta Ieven

Abstract

The alarming global rise of antimicrobial resistance combined with the lack of new antimicrobial agents has led to a renewed interest in optimization of our current antibiotics. Continuous infusion (CI) of time-dependent antibiotics has certain theoretical advantages toward efficacy based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles. We reviewed the available clinical studies concerning continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics and vancomycin in critically ill patients. We conclude that CI of beta-lactam antibiotics is not necessarily more advantageous for all patients. Continuous infusion is only likely to have clinical benefits in subpopulations of patients where intermittent infusion is unable to achieve an adequate time above the minimal inhibitory concentration (T > MIC). For example, in patients with infections caused by organisms with elevated MICs, patients with altered pharmacokinetics (such as the critically ill) and possibly also immunocompromised patients. For vancomycin CI can be chosen, not always for better clinical efficacy, but because it is practical, cheaper, associated with less AUC24h (area under the curve >24 h)-variability, and easier to monitor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 141 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Master 19 13%
Other 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 60%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 27 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,875,295
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#726
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,907
of 164,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.