Ertapenem versus Cefotetan Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery

With the availability of cefotetan and cefoxitin possibly ending, effective agents for wound prophylaxis during elective colorectal surgery are needed. In this large randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, ertapenem was found to be superior to cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The New England journal of medicine 2006-12, Vol.355 (25), p.2640-2651
Hauptverfasser: Itani, Kamal M.F, Wilson, Samuel E, Awad, Samir S, Jensen, Erin H, Finn, Tyler S, Abramson, Murray A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:With the availability of cefotetan and cefoxitin possibly ending, effective agents for wound prophylaxis during elective colorectal surgery are needed. In this large randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, ertapenem was found to be superior to cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infection but was associated with an increase in Clostridium difficile infection. Ertapenem was found to be superior to cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infection but was associated with an increase in Clostridium difficile infection. Ertapenem is a once-daily parenteral group 1 carbapenem antibiotic used in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infection. 1 – 3 Several characteristics of ertapenem make its use attractive as a potential preoperative antimicrobial agent in elective colorectal surgery, since it is characterized by rapid intravenous administration, appropriate coverage against potential pathogens, a long half-life (so it does not require a second administration during most surgeries), and a safety profile similar to that of other commonly used antibiotics. 4 – 7 To assess the efficacy and safety of ertapenem in the prevention of surgical-site infection among patients undergoing colorectal surgery, we compared it with cefotetan, . . .
ISSN:0028-4793
1533-4406
DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa054408