Continuous vs. intermittent vancomycin infusion in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- 1Department of Pharmacy, The Third People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dali University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
- 2Department of Pharmacy, Jinyun People's Hospital, Jinyun, Zhejiang, China.
- 3Hospital Administration Office, The Third People's Hospital of Yunnan Province, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dali University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Abstract
Background
Vancomycin is a first-line antibiotic for severe gram-positive infections in critically ill patients; however, its narrow therapeutic window and marked interindividual pharmacokinetic variability pose challenges in achieving optimal exposure. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous vs. intermittent vancomycin infusion in critically ill patients.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 19.0, and pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies; publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method to assess the robustness of the findings. The certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.Results
Twenty-two studies (2,140 patients) were included. Continuous infusion significantly improved serum concentration attainment (RR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.77-2.80, P < 0.001; I ² = 50.8%) and AUC/MIC attainment (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.60-2.95, P < 0.001; I ² = 39.7%), and significantly reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46-0.71, P < 0.001; I ² = 0.0%). No significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30, P = 0.629; I ² = 0.0%). Continuous infusion was associated with significantly higher steady-state concentrations (MD = 6.81 mg/L, 95% CI: 3.09-10.54, P < 0.001; I ² = 90.4%) and shorter time to target attainment (MD = -21.64 h, 95% CI: -35.99 to -7.29, P = 0.003; I ² = 84.1%), but no significant difference in AUC/MIC ratio was found (MD = 66.74, 95% CI: -56.20 to 189.67, P = 0.287; I ² = 89.8%). Publication bias was detected for serum concentration attainment (Egger P = 0.001); however, the effect estimate remained significant after trim-and-fill correction (adjusted RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.38-2.58). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the primary outcomes and low for the secondary outcomes.Conclusion
Compared with intermittent infusion, continuous vancomycin infusion significantly improves target concentration attainment and reduces nephrotoxicity without increasing mortality. These findings should be interpreted in the context of potential publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261431488), identifier CRD420261431488.
Related
- Continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion of vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on nephrotoxicity, target attainment, and clinical outcomes
- Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Bolus Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Following Endoscopic Hemostasis for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Early piperacillin exposure during continuous infusion in critically ill patients: the impact of renal and liver dysfunctions
- Cefepime exposure in prolonged or intermittent infusion in critically ill children
- Continuous or extended vs intermittent infusions of beta-lactam antibiotics in ICU patients with pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
BibTeX
@article{zhong2026continuous,
title = {{Continuous vs. intermittent vancomycin infusion in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.}},
author = {Yuanyuan Zhong and Peng Hua and Ling Zhang and Ruixiang Chen and Yuzhen Ding and Yan Sun},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2026.1951699},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948022},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Continuous vs. intermittent vancomycin infusion in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
AU - Yuanyuan Zhong
AU - Peng Hua
AU - Ling Zhang
AU - Ruixiang Chen
AU - Yuzhen Ding
AU - Yan Sun
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/13
JO - Frontiers in medicine
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2026.1951699
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948022
AB - Background Vancomycin is a first-line antibiotic for severe gram-positive infections in critically ill patients; however, its narrow therapeutic window and marked interindividual pharmacokinetic variability pose challenges in achieving optimal exposure. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous vs. intermittent vancomycin infusion in critically ill patients.Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 19.0, and pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies; publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method to assess the robustness of the findings. The certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.Results Twenty-two studies (2,140 patients) were included. Continuous infusion significantly improved serum concentration attainment (RR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.77-2.80, P < 0.001; I ² = 50.8%) and AUC/MIC attainment (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.60-2.95, P < 0.001; I ² = 39.7%), and significantly reduced the risk of nephrotoxicity (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46-0.71, P < 0.001; I ² = 0.0%). No significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30, P = 0.629; I ² = 0.0%). Continuous infusion was associated with significantly higher steady-state concentrations (MD = 6.81 mg/L, 95% CI: 3.09-10.54, P < 0.001; I ² = 90.4%) and shorter time to target attainment (MD = -21.64 h, 95% CI: -35.99 to -7.29, P = 0.003; I ² = 84.1%), but no significant difference in AUC/MIC ratio was found (MD = 66.74, 95% CI: -56.20 to 189.67, P = 0.287; I ² = 89.8%). Publication bias was detected for serum concentration attainment (Egger P = 0.001); however, the effect estimate remained significant after trim-and-fill correction (adjusted RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.38-2.58). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the primary outcomes and low for the secondary outcomes.Conclusion Compared with intermittent infusion, continuous vancomycin infusion significantly improves target concentration attainment and reduces nephrotoxicity without increasing mortality. These findings should be interpreted in the context of potential publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261431488), identifier CRD420261431488.
SN - 2296-858X
ER -