International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2019
Clinical outcomes following treatment of Enterobacter species pneumonia with piperacillin/tazobactam compared to cefepime or ertapenem.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Holsen Maya R, Wardlow Lynn C, Bazan Jose A, Fussner Lynn A, Coe Kelci E, Elefritz Jessica L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Enterobacter spp. are a common cause of nosocomial pneumonia and treatment can be complicated by AmpC resistance. Carbapenems are the treatment of choice; however, alternatives are needed. Cefepime has been shown to be non-inferior to carbapenems. There are limited data to support the use of piperacillin/tazobactam. The objective of this study was to determine if piperacillin/tazobactam is non-inferior to cefepime or ertapenem for Enterobacter pneumonia treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate of clinical cure in patients with Enterobacter pneumonia receiving definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, or ertapenem. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, infection-related length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, recurrent pneumonia, and resistance.
METHODS: Retrospective, single-center study.
RESULTS: Of 114 patients included, 59 received definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam and 55 received cefepime or ertapenem. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinical cure in the piperacillin/tazobactam group compared to the cefepime or ertapenem group (76.3% vs. 87.3%, P = 0.13). Treatment group was not associated with clinical cure when controlling for confounders in multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-2.37). The rate of recurrent pneumonia was 11.4% in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 6.7% in the cefepime or ertapenem group (P = 0.48). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of patients with Enterobacter pneumonia, clinical cure with piperacillin/tazobactam was comparable to that with cefepime or ertapenem; however, a prospective trial with a larger population is needed to determine if definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam is non-inferior to definitive treatment with cefepime or ertapenem.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate of clinical cure in patients with Enterobacter pneumonia receiving definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, or ertapenem. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, infection-related length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, recurrent pneumonia, and resistance.
METHODS: Retrospective, single-center study.
RESULTS: Of 114 patients included, 59 received definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam and 55 received cefepime or ertapenem. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinical cure in the piperacillin/tazobactam group compared to the cefepime or ertapenem group (76.3% vs. 87.3%, P = 0.13). Treatment group was not associated with clinical cure when controlling for confounders in multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-2.37). The rate of recurrent pneumonia was 11.4% in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 6.7% in the cefepime or ertapenem group (P = 0.48). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of patients with Enterobacter pneumonia, clinical cure with piperacillin/tazobactam was comparable to that with cefepime or ertapenem; however, a prospective trial with a larger population is needed to determine if definitive treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam is non-inferior to definitive treatment with cefepime or ertapenem.