↓ Skip to main content

Systemic antibiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in comatose patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Systemic antibiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in comatose patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0291-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cássia Righy, Pedro Emmanuel Americano do Brasil, Jordi Vallés, Fernando A. Bozza, Ignacio Martin-Loeches

Abstract

Early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (EO-VAP) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in comatose patients. However, VAP prevention bundles focus mainly on late-onset VAP and may be less effective in preventing EO-VAP in comatose patients. Systemic antibiotic administration at the time of intubation may have a role in preventing EO-VAP. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of systemic antibiotic administration in VAP prevention in comatose patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched for studies published through December 2015 that evaluated systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in comatose patients. Two authors independently selected and evaluated full-length reports of randomized clinical trials or prospective cohorts in patients aged >16 years that evaluated the impact of systemic antibiotics at the time of intubation on EO-VAP compared to placebo or no prophylaxis. The outcome variables were the incidence of EO-VAP, the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. We identified 10,988 citations, yielding 26 articles for further analysis; three studies with 267 patients were finally analyzed. Most patients (n = 135) were comatose due to head trauma. Systemic antibiotic administration was associated with decreased incidence of EO-VAP (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.54) and shorter ICU LOS (standardized mean difference -0.32; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.08), but had no effect on mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.7-1.53) or duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference -0.16; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.08). Antibiotic prophylaxis in comatose patients reduced the incidence of EO-VAP and decreased the ICU stay slightly. Future trials are needed to confirm these results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 30 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,428,633
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#965
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,923
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#24
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.