Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of prolonged infusion and intermittent infusion of meropenem in patients with sepsis.This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched without any language or time restrictions, up to September 25, 2023.The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included clinical success and all-cause mortality. Other outcomes assessed in this study encompassedthe mean length of ICU stay. Total eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients receiving prolonged infusion of meropenem compared to intermittent infusion (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.70). All-cause mortality was 24% significantly lower in patients receiving prolonged infusion of meropenem compared to intermittent infusion (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.96).The results suggest that prolonged infusion of meropenem could be a more effective and efficient treatment for sepsis patients. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to establish the optimal dosing and administration schedule for prolonged infusion of meropenem.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
