↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and toxicity of aerosolised colistin in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective, randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and toxicity of aerosolised colistin in ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective, randomised trial
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0127-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sami Abdellatif, Ahlem Trifi, Foued Daly, Khaoula Mahjoub, Rochdi Nasri, Salah Ben Lakhal

Abstract

Cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacilli (GNB) mainly Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enterobacteria are common in hospitalised patients of Tunisian intensive care units (ICUs). Parenteral colistin has been used for the therapy of VAP caused by MDR GNB at Tunisian hospitals over the past few years with a favourable clinical response. However, its use fell out of favour because of the reported drug-related nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity. To determine whether aerosolised (AS) colistin was beneficial and safe in therapy of gram-negative VAP. This was a randomised, single-blind study, in 149 critically ill adults who developed gram-negative VAP. Included patients were divided into two groups whether they received AS colistin (intervention group; n = 73) or intravenous (IV) colistin (control group; n = 76). AS colistin was given as 4 million units (MU) by nebulisation three times per 24 h. IV colistin was given as a loading dose of 9 MU followed by 4.5 MU two times per 24 h. Patients were followed during 28 days. Primary outcome was cure of VAP assessed at day 14 of therapy and defined as resolution of clinical signs of VAP and bacteriological eradication. Secondary outcomes were incidence of acute renal failure (ARF), mechanical ventilation length, ICU length of stay and 28-day mortality. Results were analysed based on intention-to-treat concept. The patient's baseline characteristics and distribution of pathogens VAP in both groups were similar. The clinical cure rate was 67.1 % in AS group and 72 % in IV group (p = 0.59). When administered in monotherapy or in combination, the AS regimen was as effective as IV regimen. Patients in AS group had significantly lower incidence of ARF (17.8 vs 39.4 %, p = 0.004), more favourable improvement of P/F ratio (349 vs 316 at day 14, p = 0.012), shortened time to bacterial eradication (TBE) (9.89 vs 11.26 days, p = 0.023) and earlier weaning from ventilator in ICU survivors with a mean gain in ventilator-free days of 5 days. No difference was shown in the length of stay and the 28-day mortality. Aerosolised colistin seems to be beneficial. It provided a therapeutic effectiveness non-inferior to parenteral colistin in therapy of MDR bacilli VAP with a lower nephrotoxicity, a better improvement of P/F ratio, a shortened bacterial eradication time and earlier weaning from ventilator in ICU survivors. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02683603.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 11%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 47 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,807,761
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#550
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,642
of 302,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 302,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.