Piperacilina-tazobactam en perfusión continua o expandida frente a perfusión intermitente

Objective: The primary objective of this review was to analyse the differences in efficacy between the administration of intermittent and continuous/expanded perfusion of piperacillin-tazobactam. Secondary objectives were to analyse the differences in safety, pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic parameters, and cost-effectiveness between the two forms of administration. Method: We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. We encountered a total of 38 articles, and the final number included in the study was 6. We analysed the articles and collected the following variables: design, treatment administered to each group, total number of patients and number of patients in each study, variables collected in each study, and results. Results: We encountered significant differences in the primary variable in two of the six studies favouring continuous/expanded perfusion. The study by Lodise et al found differences (P=.04) in mortality (31.6% for intermittent perfusion vs 12.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion). The study by Lorente et al found differences (P=.001) in terms of clinical recovery (56.5% for intermittent perfusion vs 89.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion). As for secondary variables, we only found differences in one of the studies in relation to cost-effectiveness, in favour of the group who underwent continuous/expanded perfusion method. Conclusion: The analysed data suggest that continuous/expanded perfusion would be at least as effective as intermittent perfusion, and that it could be more effective in severe patients with infections from more resistant micro-organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additionally, this form of administration is more cost-effective, at least in theory.