American journal of surgery · 2003
A comparison of the prophylactic efficacy of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime in abdominal surgery.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Woodfield John C, Van Rij Andre M, Pettigrew Ross A, van der Linden Antje J, Solomon Clive, Bolt Donna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although ceftriaxone (R) and cefotaxime (C) are highly effective antibiotics, few studies have directly compared their prophylactic efficacy.
METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double blind study of 1,013 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the prophylactic use of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime were compared. Intravenous cephalosporin, 1 g, was given at induction of anesthesia, with intravenous metronidazole, 500 mg, also being given for colorectal surgery.
RESULTS: The difference in wound infection (R 8%, C 12%, P <0.05) was due to appendicectomies not receiving metronidazole, (R 6%, C 18%, P <0.03) and was no longer present when these cases were excluded from analysis (R 8%, C 10%). Of note chest and urinary tract infection (R 6%, C 11%, P <0.02) and "any" infection (R 20%, C 27%, P <0.05) were reduced with ceftriaxone.
CONCLUSIONS: Both antibiotics provide comparable wound prophylaxis as long as metronidazole is added for colorectal and appendiceal surgery. Ceftriaxone may be more versatile having the additional apparent benefits of reducing other postoperative infections, being less dependent on metronidazole as an adjunct and providing a more effective prophylactic cover against Staphylococcus aureus.
METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double blind study of 1,013 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the prophylactic use of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime were compared. Intravenous cephalosporin, 1 g, was given at induction of anesthesia, with intravenous metronidazole, 500 mg, also being given for colorectal surgery.
RESULTS: The difference in wound infection (R 8%, C 12%, P <0.05) was due to appendicectomies not receiving metronidazole, (R 6%, C 18%, P <0.03) and was no longer present when these cases were excluded from analysis (R 8%, C 10%). Of note chest and urinary tract infection (R 6%, C 11%, P <0.02) and "any" infection (R 20%, C 27%, P <0.05) were reduced with ceftriaxone.
CONCLUSIONS: Both antibiotics provide comparable wound prophylaxis as long as metronidazole is added for colorectal and appendiceal surgery. Ceftriaxone may be more versatile having the additional apparent benefits of reducing other postoperative infections, being less dependent on metronidazole as an adjunct and providing a more effective prophylactic cover against Staphylococcus aureus.