Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial
In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acqui...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical infectious diseases 1998-02, Vol.26 (2), p.346-354 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 354 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 346 |
container_title | Clinical infectious diseases |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Brun-Buisson, C. Sollet, J. P. Schweich, H. Brière, S. Petit, C. |
description | In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acquired after ⩾48 hours of mechanical ventilation). VAP was diagnosed with use of protected samples and quantitative cultures, and outcome was assessed blindly from treatment. Of 204 patients suspected of having VAP and randomized to a treatment arm of the study, 127 (64%) had bacteriologically confirmed infections, of which 37% were polymicrobial and 32% involved Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 115 patients (51 TAZ and 64 CAZ recipients) remained evaluable as per protocol. Clinical/bacteriologic cure rates (TAZ vs. CAZ, 51% vs. 36%; 95% confidence interval of difference, −0.2% to 30.2%), and 28-day mortality rates (16% vs. 20%) were similar; however, fewer bacteriologic failures occurred with TAZ (33% vs. 51%; P = .05). We conclude that the two regimens were of equivalent clinical efficacy in therapy for confirmed VAP. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1086/516294 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16551362</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4481358</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4481358</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1bc1de04e1339924a56beb06bb2b181b31ef2e6caf81c2231553d9cab0a2bfe73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1v1DAQhiMEEqXAL-CQA-JE2owdOwm31YqllYooaPkQF2vsTIRbJ15sR8D-FH4trrZaTjOa59E70lsUz6E-g7qT5wIk65sHxQkI3lZS9PAw77Xoqqbj3ePiSYw3dQ3Q1eKk-LsNhGmiOZV-LL_kaR0mH6pVjN5YTDSU1zMtk58tlr9s-lFe2x0FNNY5O1db3HuNJuF0vprsbT7POSXEJZZrGhPu7WAnOrI35ap8v7hkTf5E4XX5CefBT3af36z9nIJ3Lq_bYNE9LR6N6CI9u5-nxefN2-36orr68O5yvbqqDG9ZqkAbGKhuCDjve9agkJp0LbVmGjrQHGhkJA2OHRjGOAjBh96grpHpkVp-Wrw65O6C_7lQTGqy0ZBzOJNfogIpBHDJ_osm-BgDjWoX7IThj4Ja3VWvDtVn8eV9IkaDbgw4GxuPNoOm4dBl7cVBu4m58SNumg64uMPVAduY6PcRY7hVsuWtUBffvishv36Ehm3Uhv8DQ1OeOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16551362</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Brun-Buisson, C. ; Sollet, J. P. ; Schweich, H. ; Brière, S. ; Petit, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brun-Buisson, C. ; Sollet, J. P. ; Schweich, H. ; Brière, S. ; Petit, C. ; the VAP Study Group</creatorcontrib><description>In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acquired after ⩾48 hours of mechanical ventilation). VAP was diagnosed with use of protected samples and quantitative cultures, and outcome was assessed blindly from treatment. Of 204 patients suspected of having VAP and randomized to a treatment arm of the study, 127 (64%) had bacteriologically confirmed infections, of which 37% were polymicrobial and 32% involved Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 115 patients (51 TAZ and 64 CAZ recipients) remained evaluable as per protocol. Clinical/bacteriologic cure rates (TAZ vs. CAZ, 51% vs. 36%; 95% confidence interval of difference, −0.2% to 30.2%), and 28-day mortality rates (16% vs. 20%) were similar; however, fewer bacteriologic failures occurred with TAZ (33% vs. 51%; P = .05). We conclude that the two regimens were of equivalent clinical efficacy in therapy for confirmed VAP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-4838</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-6591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/516294</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CIDIEL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Antibiotics ; Antimicrobials ; Artificial respiration ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Articles ; Dosage ; Emergency and intensive respiratory care ; Health outcomes ; Infections ; Intensive care medicine ; Medical sciences ; Medical treatment failures ; Mortality ; Pneumonia ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ; Ventilator associated pneumonia</subject><ispartof>Clinical infectious diseases, 1998-02, Vol.26 (2), p.346-354</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1998 The University of Chicago</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1bc1de04e1339924a56beb06bb2b181b31ef2e6caf81c2231553d9cab0a2bfe73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4481358$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4481358$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2144318$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brun-Buisson, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sollet, J. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schweich, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brière, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petit, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the VAP Study Group</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial</title><title>Clinical infectious diseases</title><addtitle>Clinical Infectious Diseases</addtitle><description>In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acquired after ⩾48 hours of mechanical ventilation). VAP was diagnosed with use of protected samples and quantitative cultures, and outcome was assessed blindly from treatment. Of 204 patients suspected of having VAP and randomized to a treatment arm of the study, 127 (64%) had bacteriologically confirmed infections, of which 37% were polymicrobial and 32% involved Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 115 patients (51 TAZ and 64 CAZ recipients) remained evaluable as per protocol. Clinical/bacteriologic cure rates (TAZ vs. CAZ, 51% vs. 36%; 95% confidence interval of difference, −0.2% to 30.2%), and 28-day mortality rates (16% vs. 20%) were similar; however, fewer bacteriologic failures occurred with TAZ (33% vs. 51%; P = .05). We conclude that the two regimens were of equivalent clinical efficacy in therapy for confirmed VAP.</description><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Antimicrobials</subject><subject>Artificial respiration</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Articles</subject><subject>Dosage</subject><subject>Emergency and intensive respiratory care</subject><subject>Health outcomes</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Intensive care medicine</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medical treatment failures</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Pneumonia</subject><subject>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</subject><subject>Ventilator associated pneumonia</subject><issn>1058-4838</issn><issn>1537-6591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkE1v1DAQhiMEEqXAL-CQA-JE2owdOwm31YqllYooaPkQF2vsTIRbJ15sR8D-FH4trrZaTjOa59E70lsUz6E-g7qT5wIk65sHxQkI3lZS9PAw77Xoqqbj3ePiSYw3dQ3Q1eKk-LsNhGmiOZV-LL_kaR0mH6pVjN5YTDSU1zMtk58tlr9s-lFe2x0FNNY5O1db3HuNJuF0vprsbT7POSXEJZZrGhPu7WAnOrI35ap8v7hkTf5E4XX5CefBT3af36z9nIJ3Lq_bYNE9LR6N6CI9u5-nxefN2-36orr68O5yvbqqDG9ZqkAbGKhuCDjve9agkJp0LbVmGjrQHGhkJA2OHRjGOAjBh96grpHpkVp-Wrw65O6C_7lQTGqy0ZBzOJNfogIpBHDJ_osm-BgDjWoX7IThj4Ja3VWvDtVn8eV9IkaDbgw4GxuPNoOm4dBl7cVBu4m58SNumg64uMPVAduY6PcRY7hVsuWtUBffvishv36Ehm3Uhv8DQ1OeOQ</recordid><startdate>19980201</startdate><enddate>19980201</enddate><creator>Brun-Buisson, C.</creator><creator>Sollet, J. P.</creator><creator>Schweich, H.</creator><creator>Brière, S.</creator><creator>Petit, C.</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980201</creationdate><title>Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial</title><author>Brun-Buisson, C. ; Sollet, J. P. ; Schweich, H. ; Brière, S. ; Petit, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1bc1de04e1339924a56beb06bb2b181b31ef2e6caf81c2231553d9cab0a2bfe73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Antimicrobials</topic><topic>Artificial respiration</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Articles</topic><topic>Dosage</topic><topic>Emergency and intensive respiratory care</topic><topic>Health outcomes</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Intensive care medicine</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medical treatment failures</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Pneumonia</topic><topic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</topic><topic>Ventilator associated pneumonia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brun-Buisson, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sollet, J. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schweich, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brière, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petit, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the VAP Study Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brun-Buisson, C.</au><au>Sollet, J. P.</au><au>Schweich, H.</au><au>Brière, S.</au><au>Petit, C.</au><aucorp>the VAP Study Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Clinical Infectious Diseases</addtitle><date>1998-02-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>346</spage><epage>354</epage><pages>346-354</pages><issn>1058-4838</issn><eissn>1537-6591</eissn><coden>CIDIEL</coden><abstract>In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acquired after ⩾48 hours of mechanical ventilation). VAP was diagnosed with use of protected samples and quantitative cultures, and outcome was assessed blindly from treatment. Of 204 patients suspected of having VAP and randomized to a treatment arm of the study, 127 (64%) had bacteriologically confirmed infections, of which 37% were polymicrobial and 32% involved Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 115 patients (51 TAZ and 64 CAZ recipients) remained evaluable as per protocol. Clinical/bacteriologic cure rates (TAZ vs. CAZ, 51% vs. 36%; 95% confidence interval of difference, −0.2% to 30.2%), and 28-day mortality rates (16% vs. 20%) were similar; however, fewer bacteriologic failures occurred with TAZ (33% vs. 51%; P = .05). We conclude that the two regimens were of equivalent clinical efficacy in therapy for confirmed VAP.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/516294</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1058-4838 |
ispartof | Clinical infectious diseases, 1998-02, Vol.26 (2), p.346-354 |
issn | 1058-4838 1537-6591 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16551362 |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Antibiotics Antimicrobials Artificial respiration Biological and medical sciences Clinical Articles Dosage Emergency and intensive respiratory care Health outcomes Infections Intensive care medicine Medical sciences Medical treatment failures Mortality Pneumonia Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ventilator associated pneumonia |
title | Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin Versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T19%3A55%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20of%20Ventilator-Associated%20Pneumonia%20with%20Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin%20Versus%20Ceftazidime/Amikacin:%20A%20Multicenter,%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20infectious%20diseases&rft.au=Brun-Buisson,%20C.&rft.aucorp=the%20VAP%20Study%20Group&rft.date=1998-02-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=346&rft.epage=354&rft.pages=346-354&rft.issn=1058-4838&rft.eissn=1537-6591&rft.coden=CIDIEL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/516294&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4481358%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16551362&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=4481358&rfr_iscdi=true |