Next Article in Journal
The Emerging Role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Diarrhea: Where We Stand
Previous Article in Journal
Infective Endocarditis by Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria—A Systematic Review
 
 
GERMS is published by MDPI from Volume 25 Issue 4 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with the former publisher Infection Science Forum S.R.L..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Where Do We Stand Today? A Narrative Review

by
Basil Alawyia
1,*,†,
Sarah Fathima
1,†,
Nikolaos Spernovasilis
2 and
Danny Alon-Ellenbogen
1
1
Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, University of Nicosia Medical School, 2417 Nicosia, Cyprus
2
Department of Infectious Diseases, German Oncology Center, 4108 Limassol, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Both authors contributed equally to the manuscript.
GERMS 2024, 14(2), 162-178; https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1428
Submission received: 4 January 2024 / Revised: 17 May 2024 / Accepted: 9 June 2024 / Published: 30 June 2024

Abstract

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the greatest threats to global healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2050 ten million deaths will be attributed to AMR annually. In response, the WHO has implemented antibiotic stewardship programs which focus on optimizing antibiotic use and raise, amongst others, the issue of the preferred method of intravenous antibiotic administration. Various studies have attempted to answer this question with conflicting results. Review: This review examined several studies assessing extended/continuous infusion compared to intermittent infusion of three beta-lactams: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem. The findings and conclusions of each study were summarized and compared to one another to provide a general overview of the current evidence. Conclusions: We conclude that continuous/extended infusion showed a greater clinical benefit in highly critical cases, namely sepsis and febrile neutropenia, compared to intermittent infusion. Additionally, in cases where a pathogen was identified, continuous/extended infusion showed superiority. Nonetheless, high-quality studies with larger samples are needed to demonstrate the difference between these two modes of infusion in a way that would better inform guidelines and policies, aiding in the fight against AMR.
Keywords: continuous/extended/intermittent infusion; piperacillin-tazobactam; cefepime; meropenem continuous/extended/intermittent infusion; piperacillin-tazobactam; cefepime; meropenem

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alawyia, B.; Fathima, S.; Spernovasilis, N.; Alon-Ellenbogen, D. Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Where Do We Stand Today? A Narrative Review. GERMS 2024, 14, 162-178. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1428

AMA Style

Alawyia B, Fathima S, Spernovasilis N, Alon-Ellenbogen D. Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Where Do We Stand Today? A Narrative Review. GERMS. 2024; 14(2):162-178. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alawyia, Basil, Sarah Fathima, Nikolaos Spernovasilis, and Danny Alon-Ellenbogen. 2024. "Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Where Do We Stand Today? A Narrative Review" GERMS 14, no. 2: 162-178. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1428

APA Style

Alawyia, B., Fathima, S., Spernovasilis, N., & Alon-Ellenbogen, D. (2024). Continuous Versus Intermittent Infusion of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Where Do We Stand Today? A Narrative Review. GERMS, 14(2), 162-178. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1428

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop