↓ Skip to main content

Continuous infusion of antibiotics in the critically ill: The new holy grail for beta-lactams and vancomycin?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Continuous infusion of antibiotics in the critically ill: The new holy grail for beta-lactams and vancomycin?
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Van Herendael, Axel Jeurissen, Paul M Tulkens, Erika Vlieghe, Walter Verbrugghe, Philippe G Jorens, Margareta Ieven

Abstract

The alarming global rise of antimicrobial resistance combined with the lack of new antimicrobial agents has led to a renewed interest in optimization of our current antibiotics. Continuous infusion (CI) of time-dependent antibiotics has certain theoretical advantages toward efficacy based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles. We reviewed the available clinical studies concerning continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics and vancomycin in critically ill patients. We conclude that CI of beta-lactam antibiotics is not necessarily more advantageous for all patients. Continuous infusion is only likely to have clinical benefits in subpopulations of patients where intermittent infusion is unable to achieve an adequate time above the minimal inhibitory concentration (T > MIC). For example, in patients with infections caused by organisms with elevated MICs, patients with altered pharmacokinetics (such as the critically ill) and possibly also immunocompromised patients. For vancomycin CI can be chosen, not always for better clinical efficacy, but because it is practical, cheaper, associated with less AUC24h (area under the curve >24 h)-variability, and easier to monitor.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Other 16 14%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 71%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 15 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,010,287
of 5,060,128 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#109
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,482
of 84,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,060,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 84,989 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.