File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Randomized comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infection

TitleRandomized comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infection
Authors
Issue Date2004
PublisherElsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Hong Kong Branch. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/708511/description#description
Citation
Asian Journal Of Surgery, 2004, v. 27 n. 3, p. 227-235 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES: Treatment of intra-abdominal infections remains a challenge because of their polymicrobial nature and associated mortality risk. Broad-spectrum empiric coverage is usually required. This randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam with those of intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of 293 hospitalized patients with intra-abdominal infection. METHODS: A total of 149 patients received piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg every 8 hours, and 144 patients received imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg/500 mg every 6 hours. Efficacy was evaluated by clinical and bacteriological response. Safety was evaluated by analysis of adverse events and physical and laboratory examinations. RESULTS: Clinical and bacteriological responses in both evaluable treatment groups were equivalent. The clinical success was 97% (108/111) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 97% (100/103) for imipenem/cilastatin. Bacteriological success was 97% (67/69) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 95% (61/64) for imipenem/cilastatin. The most common pathogens were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The frequencies of treatment-related adverse events were similar (16 with piperacillin/tazobactam and 19 with imipenem/cilastatin). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the safety and efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam administered every 8 hours are equivalent to those of imipenem/cilastatin administered every 6 hours for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/83360
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.912
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.427
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorErasmo, AAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCrisostomo, ACen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYan, LNen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHong, YSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLee, KUen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLo, CMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T08:40:06Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T08:40:06Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_HK
dc.identifier.citationAsian Journal Of Surgery, 2004, v. 27 n. 3, p. 227-235en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1015-9584en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/83360-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Treatment of intra-abdominal infections remains a challenge because of their polymicrobial nature and associated mortality risk. Broad-spectrum empiric coverage is usually required. This randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam with those of intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of 293 hospitalized patients with intra-abdominal infection. METHODS: A total of 149 patients received piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg every 8 hours, and 144 patients received imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg/500 mg every 6 hours. Efficacy was evaluated by clinical and bacteriological response. Safety was evaluated by analysis of adverse events and physical and laboratory examinations. RESULTS: Clinical and bacteriological responses in both evaluable treatment groups were equivalent. The clinical success was 97% (108/111) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 97% (100/103) for imipenem/cilastatin. Bacteriological success was 97% (67/69) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 95% (61/64) for imipenem/cilastatin. The most common pathogens were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The frequencies of treatment-related adverse events were similar (16 with piperacillin/tazobactam and 19 with imipenem/cilastatin). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the safety and efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam administered every 8 hours are equivalent to those of imipenem/cilastatin administered every 6 hours for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherElsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Hong Kong Branch. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/708511/description#descriptionen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofAsian Journal of Surgeryen_HK
dc.titleRandomized comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infectionen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1015-9584&volume=27&issue=3&spage=227&epage=235&date=2004&atitle=Randomized+comparison+of+piperacillin/tazobactam+versus+imipenem/cilastatin+in+the+treatment+of+patients+with+intra-abdominal+infectionen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid15564167-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-4143089176en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros98134en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-4143089176&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume27en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage227en_HK
dc.identifier.epage235en_HK
dc.publisher.placeHong Kongen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridErasmo, AA=6506872062en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCrisostomo, AC=6603116208en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYan, LN=7402671200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHong, YS=7403393492en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, KU=8232975400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLo, CM=7401771672en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats