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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical infectious diseases 1998-02, Vol.26 (2), p.346-354
Hauptverfasser: Brun-Buisson, C., Sollet, J. P., Schweich, H., Brière, S., Petit, C.
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&amp;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