Methods: Four ampoules of intravenous co-trimoxazole were injected into an infusion bag containing either 480 (1:25 v/v), 380 (1:20 v/v), 280 (1:15 v/v) or 180 (1:10 v/v) mL of glucose 5% solution. Three bags for each dilution (total 12 bags) were prepared and stored at room temperature. An aliquot was withdrawn immediately (at 0 hour) and after 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 hours of storage for high-performance liquid-chromatography (HPLC) analysis, and additional samples were withdrawn every half an hour for microscopic examination. Each sample was analysed for the concentration of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole using a stability indicating HPLC method. Samples were assessed for pH, change in colour (visually) and for particle content (microscopically) immediately after preparation and on each time of analysis.
Results: Intravenous co-trimoxazole at 1:25, 1:20, 1:15 and 1:10 v/v retained more than 98% of the initial concentration of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole for 4 hours. There was no major change in pH at time zero and at various time points. Microscopically, no particles were detected for at least 4 hours and 2 hours when intravenous co-trimoxazole was diluted at 1:25 or 1:20 and 1:15 v/v, respectively. More than 1200 particles/mL were detected after 2.5 hours of storage when intravenous co-trimoxazole was diluted at 1:15 v/v.
Conclusions: Intravenous co-trimoxazole is stable over a period of 4 hours when diluted with 380 mL of glucose 5% solution (1:20 v/v) and for 2 hours when diluted with 280 mL glucose 5% solution (1:15 v/v).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.
METHODS: This was a two-centre randomised controlled trial of CI versus IB dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics, which enrolled critically ill participants with severe sepsis who were not on renal replacement therapy (RRT). The primary outcome was clinical cure at 14 days after antibiotic cessation. Secondary outcomes were PK/PD target attainment, ICU-free days and ventilator-free days at day 28 post-randomisation, 14- and 30-day survival, and time to white cell count normalisation.
RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were enrolled with 70 participants each allocated to CI and IB dosing. CI participants had higher clinical cure rates (56 versus 34 %, p = 0.011) and higher median ventilator-free days (22 versus 14 days, p MIC than the IB arm on day 1 (97 versus 70 %, p
OBJECTIVES: In this individual patient data meta-analysis of critically ill patients with severe sepsis, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes of those treated with continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactam antibiotics.
METHODS: We identified relevant randomized controlled trials comparing continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. We assessed the quality of the studies according to four criteria. We combined individual patient data from studies and assessed data integrity for common baseline demographics and study endpoints, including hospital mortality censored at 30 days and clinical cure. We then determined the pooled estimates of effect and investigated factors associated with hospital mortality in multivariable analysis.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified three randomized controlled trials in which researchers recruited a total of 632 patients with severe sepsis. The two groups were well balanced in terms of age, sex, and illness severity. The rates of hospital mortality and clinical cure for the continuous versus intermittent infusion groups were 19.6% versus 26.3% (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.00; P = 0.045) and 55.4% versus 46.3% (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.40; P = 0.021), respectively. In a multivariable model, intermittent β-lactam administration, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, use of renal replacement therapy, and infection by nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli were significantly associated with hospital mortality. Continuous β-lactam administration was not independently associated with clinical cure.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with intermittent dosing, administration of β-lactam antibiotics by continuous infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis is associated with decreased hospital mortality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data were obtained for 36 patients with CKD stage 4 and 5 after parathyroid surgery, correlating albumin-corrected serum calcium with the infusion rate of calcium gluconate. Calcium flux was characterised along with excursions out of the target calcium range of 2 to 3 mmol/L. With this data, an improved titration regimen was constructed.
RESULTS: Mean peak efflux rate (PER) from the extracellular calcium pool was 2.97 mmol/h occurring 26.6 hours postoperatively. Peak calcium efflux tended to occur later in cases of severe POH. Eighty-one per cent of patients had excursions outside of the target calcium range of 2 to 3 mmol/L. Mean time of onset for hypocalcaemia was 2 days postoperatively. Hypocalcaemia was transient in 25% and persistent in 11% of patients.
CONCLUSION: A simple titration regimen was constructed in which a 10% calcium gluconate infusion was started at 4.5 mL/h when serum calcium was <2 mmol/L, then increased to 6.5 mL/h and finally to 9.0 mL/h if calcium continued falling. Preoperative oral calcium and calcitriol doses were maintained. Blood testing was done 6-hourly, but when a higher infusion rate was needed, 4-hourly blood testing was preferred. Monitoring was discontinued if no hypocalcaemia developed in the fi rst 4 days after surgery. If hypocalcaemia persisted 6 days after surgery, then the infusion was stopped with further monitoring for 24 hours.