Randomized trial of combination versus monotherapy for the empiric treatment of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a strategy of combination therapy with a strategy of monotherapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics for suspected late ventilator-associated pneumonia. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Twenty-eight intensive care units in Canada and the United States. PATIENTS: The study included 740 mechanically ventilated patients who developed suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia after 96 hrs in the intensive care unit. Patients known to be colonized or infected with Pseudomonas or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or who were immunocompromised were excluded from the study. INTERVENTIONS: As initial unblinded therapy, patients were allocated to receive meropenem (1 g every 8 hrs) and ciprofloxacin (400 mg every 12 hrs) or meropenem alone. Before starting antibiotics, patients were also randomized to bronchoalveolar lavage with quantitative cultures or endotracheal aspirates. When culture results were available, physicians were encouraged to adjust antibiotics. Adequacy of antibiotics was defined as the organism present in the enrollment culture having in vitro susceptibility to one or more of the study antibiotics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and etiologies of ventilator-associated pneumonia were similar in the two groups. There was no difference in 28-day mortality between the combination and monotherapy groups (relative risk = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.42, p = .74). Duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay, clinical and microbiological treatment response, emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, isolation of Clostridium difficile in stool, and fungal colonization were also similar in the two groups. In a subgroup of patients who had infection due to Pseudomonas species, Acinetobacter species, and multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli at enrollment (n = 56), the adequacy of initial antibiotics (84.2% vs. 18.8%, p < .001) and microbiological eradication of infecting organisms (64.1% vs. 29.4%, p = .05) was higher in the combination group compared with the monotherapy group, but there were no differences in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For critically ill patients who have suspected late ventilator-associated pneumonia and who are at low risk for difficult-to-treat gram-negative bacteria, monotherapy is associated with similar outcomes compared with combination therapy. For those patients at high risk of difficult-to-treat gram-negative bacteria, combination therapy is safe and may be associated with better microbiological and clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".