Repository logo
  • English
  • 中文
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logo
    Communities & Collections
    Research Outputs
    Fundings & Projects
    People
    Organizations
    Statistics
  • English
  • 中文
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Chung Shan Medical University
  3. Pure學術人才庫轉入
  4. Clinical efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia
 
  • Details
Options

Clinical efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia

Journal
Infection and Drug Resistance
Date Issued
2021-01-01
Author(s)
YAO-TUNG WANG  
DOI
10.2147/IDR.S313828
URI
https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85108841894
https://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/25862
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazonesulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Results: A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazonesulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP. Conclusion: For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazonesulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam.
Type
journal article
Make it your own

DSpace-CRIS can be extensively configured to meet your needs. Decide which information need to be collected and available with fine-grained security. Start updating the theme to match your Institution's web identity.

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback