Continuous Vancomycin Infusion versus Intermittent Infusion in Critically Ill Patients
2
Issued Date
2022-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
11786973
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85145838696
Journal Title
Infection and Drug Resistance
Volume
15
Start Page
7751
End Page
7760
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Infection and Drug Resistance Vol.15 (2022) , 7751-7760
Suggested Citation
Maluangnon C., Tongyoo S., Permpikul C. Continuous Vancomycin Infusion versus Intermittent Infusion in Critically Ill Patients. Infection and Drug Resistance Vol.15 (2022) , 7751-7760. 7760. doi:10.2147/idr.s395385 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/86221
Title
Continuous Vancomycin Infusion versus Intermittent Infusion in Critically Ill Patients
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Vancomycin is the best-choice medication for methicillin-resistant staphylococcal and enterococcal infections, which are major problems in intensive care units (ICUs). Intermittent infusion is standard for vancomycin, although delayed therapeutic target achievement and supra-and subtherapeutic levels are concerns. A recently proposed alternative with superior therapeutic target achievement is continuous infusion. Objective: To compare the benefits of continuous (CVI) and intermittent (IVI) vancomycin infusion. Methods: This quasi-experimental study used propensity score-matched historical controls and adult patients in medical and surgical ICUs for whom vancomycin was indicated. The experimental group received CVI for ≥ 48 hours. Data on patients receiving IVI between January 2018 and October 2020 were reviewed. Capability to achieve serum vancomycin therapeutic targets (48 and 96 hours), episodes of supra-and subtherapeutic levels, treatment success, mortality, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) were analyzed before and after one-to-two propensity score matching. Results: The CVI group had 31 patients, while the unmatched IVI group had 125. More CVI patients achieved the therapeutic target within 48 hours (54.8% vs 25.6%; P=0.002). CVI patients had a higher median number of supratherapeutic episodes (2 vs 1; P=0.007) but a lower median for subtherapeutic episodes (0 vs 1; P=0.003). Other outcomes demonstrated no differences. After propensity score matching, target achievement within 48 hours (54.8% vs 22.6%; P=0.002) and fewer subtherapeutic episodes (0 vs 1; P=0.014) remained significant. Conclusion: CVI’s rapid therapeutic target achievement and fewer subtherapeutic episodes make it superior to IVI. No differences in treatment success, mortality, or AKI are evident.