Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections
Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and agai...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 349 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 342 |
container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
container_volume | 145 |
creator | Sweet, Richard L. Robbie, Marilyn O. Ohm-Smith, Marilyn Hadley, W.Keith |
description | Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80366534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0002937883907226</els_id><sourcerecordid>80366534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMoun78A4WeRA_VpNmk6UWQxS8QvHgPMZlotG1qki7uvzd1F48KA8PMvO8MPIPQMcEXBBN-iTGuyobW4kzQ8wbXVVXyLTQjuKlLLrjYRrNfyR7aj_F9Kqum2kW7vCKiZmyGPha-G1RQyS2hiGk0q8LbYnADBKVd27q-WEKIYyw0WP_lUm7kSG9QpAAqddCnyeFfYoIUnC5Ub4rXVQ_at_411663oJPzfTxEO1a1EY42-QA93948L-7Lx6e7h8X1Y6mpEKkUTCtMTV3XIGzDhDEaC0ZEUxGcW4qZeaWBMlUrShvARps5F8w2nFJsLT1Ap-u1Q_CfI8QkOxc1tK3qwY9RCkw5Z3T-r5BQJnjmmoXztVAHH2MAK4fgOhVWkmA5_UJOZOUEWgoqf34hebadbPaPLx2YX9MGfp5freeQYSwdBBm1g16DcSEjk8a7vw98A1iUmj8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>13586072</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</creator><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><description>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 6218755</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Bacterial Infections - drug therapy ; Cefoxitin - therapeutic use ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Female ; Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Penicillins - therapeutic use ; Piperacillin ; Pregnancy</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349</ispartof><rights>1983</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6218755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - drug therapy</subject><subject>Cefoxitin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Penicillins - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Piperacillin</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1983</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMoun78A4WeRA_VpNmk6UWQxS8QvHgPMZlotG1qki7uvzd1F48KA8PMvO8MPIPQMcEXBBN-iTGuyobW4kzQ8wbXVVXyLTQjuKlLLrjYRrNfyR7aj_F9Kqum2kW7vCKiZmyGPha-G1RQyS2hiGk0q8LbYnADBKVd27q-WEKIYyw0WP_lUm7kSG9QpAAqddCnyeFfYoIUnC5Ub4rXVQ_at_411663oJPzfTxEO1a1EY42-QA93948L-7Lx6e7h8X1Y6mpEKkUTCtMTV3XIGzDhDEaC0ZEUxGcW4qZeaWBMlUrShvARps5F8w2nFJsLT1Ap-u1Q_CfI8QkOxc1tK3qwY9RCkw5Z3T-r5BQJnjmmoXztVAHH2MAK4fgOhVWkmA5_UJOZOUEWgoqf34hebadbPaPLx2YX9MGfp5freeQYSwdBBm1g16DcSEjk8a7vw98A1iUmj8</recordid><startdate>19830201</startdate><enddate>19830201</enddate><creator>Sweet, Richard L.</creator><creator>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creator><creator>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creator><creator>Hadley, W.Keith</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19830201</creationdate><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><author>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1983</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - drug therapy</topic><topic>Cefoxitin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Penicillins - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Piperacillin</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sweet, Richard L.</au><au>Robbie, Marilyn O.</au><au>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</au><au>Hadley, W.Keith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1983-02-01</date><risdate>1983</risdate><volume>145</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>342</spage><epage>349</epage><pages>342-349</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>6218755</pmid><doi>10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349 |
issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80366534 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Bacterial Infections - drug therapy Cefoxitin - therapeutic use Clinical Trials as Topic Female Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy Humans Middle Aged Penicillins - therapeutic use Piperacillin Pregnancy |
title | Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T10%3A49%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20study%20of%20piperacillin%20versus%20cefoxitin%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20obstetric%20and%20gynecologic%20infections&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Sweet,%20Richard%20L.&rft.date=1983-02-01&rft.volume=145&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=342&rft.epage=349&rft.pages=342-349&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E80366534%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=13586072&rft_id=info:pmid/6218755&rft_els_id=0002937883907226&rfr_iscdi=true |