Piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections: A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Authors' conclusion
Based on very low or low certainty evidence, piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes in patients with severe bacterial infections as compared with carbapenems, but the information size for a robust conclusion has not been reached.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with severe bacterial infection (any bacterial infection requiring hospitalisation)
- Participants
- 8,790 adults · 31 trials
- Comparison
- Empirical and/or definitive piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems
- Outcome
- All-cause short-term mortality
- Follow-up
- Within 90 days
Methodological detailsrandom effects and fixed effect meta-analyses, trial sequential analysis
- Random effects and fixed effect meta-analyses
- Trial sequential analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
RR, piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems
1.16
95% CI 0.94–1.43
Further pooled results
Secondary infections
- RR, piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems
- 1.13 (98% CI 0.76-1.68)
- Very low certainty evidence
Selection of fungi or resistant bacteria
- RR, piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems
- 1.61 (98% CI 0.89-2.89)
- Very low certainty evidence
Remaining secondary outcomes
- No or limited data
Safety
Adverse events
- RR, piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems
- 1.00 (98% CI 0.96-1.04)
- Moderate certainty evidence
Original publication
Piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections: A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Published 28 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →